Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Indian Ocean Bases

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussion with the Governments of India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia on the development of Anglo-American bases in the Indian Ocean, such as Diego Garcia.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth countries regarding developments for defence purposes in the Indian Ocean; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): The United States proposal to expand its facilities at Diego Garcia is still being considered. This question is relevant to the general background of the review of defence commitments and capabilities which has already been announced. This review will take full account of the needs for security and stability in the area. The views of Commonwealth and other interested countries will also be carefully considered.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the stability in the area likely to be helped or not by a nuclear-free zone?

Mr. Ennals: We are well aware of the proposals for an Indian Ocean peace zone. We are looking forward to the report of the United Nations ad hoc committee which is expected shortly, and we

shall give the proposals careful consideration.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Government bear in mind, and draw to the attention of the countries in the area, that the Soviet Union has the use of bases on the shores of the Indian Ocean? Unless and until a binding international agreement is reached to the contrary, is it not reasonable that we and our allies should have similar facilities?

Mr. Ennals: It is true that the Soviet naval presence has increased steadily in quantity and quality over the past five years and is larger than that of the Western countries. However, I do not intend to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question because I can assure him that we shall be taking into consideration all representations and the views of all countries when a final decision is reached.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Surely my right hon. Friend realises that that is a self-defeating defence exercise if our friends and allies in the area do not want this base.

Mr. Ennals: I have not indicated any decision by Her Majesty's Government. I made clear that this matter was being carefully considered, and I indicated also that the views of the Commonwealth and other interested countries were being taken carefully into consideration.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common Market renegotiations.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of his renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made with the renegotiation of the terms of the EEC agreement.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs


whether he can now state his detailed proposals for renegotiating the terms of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's renegotiation of the terms of entry to the EEC.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will outline his specific proposals to the Council of Ministers on renegotiation of the terms of entry of the United Kingdom to the European Communities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of renegotiation of the EEC agreement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): The preparation of Her Majesty's Government's detailed renegotiation proposals has been making good progress, and I expect to make a further statement on them at a Council of Ministers' meeting early next month. They will be fully consistent with the objectives which I have already explained in the House. I shall, of course, report to the House after the meeting.

Mr. Marten: I very much look forward to hearing about that. However, in the meantime, in his talks with his Common Market colleagues, has the Foreign Secretary been able to discover what his predecessor meant by political European union by 1980? May we have an assurance that the Government are opposed to any further steps in the Common Market towards a federal or supranational State?

Mr. Callaghan: What I have discovered is that the Council of Ministers and, apparently, the other institutions are under a remit to produce both a definition of this term and proposals for achieving it. So far there does not seem to be a consensus. Therefore, there is no case for us to move any further at present.

Mr. Marten: May we have an assurance for the future?

Mr. Callaghan: This is so far into the distant future that I am more concerned at the moment with the immediate difficulties that are besetting us.

Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people in this country who, irrespective of its definition, would not want Britain to be part of a supranational European State? Is he not also aware that many people believe that if there is to be procrastination he should see that it is kept to a minimum, because in these negotiations procrastination could be the thief of our liberty?

Mr. Callaghan: I am well aware of that. It helps to frame the approach of Her Majesty's Government to these problems. However, there is a long way to go before there is any agreed policy on this development.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members welcome the fact that the Government are negotiating in good faith to see whether arrangements can be reached by which Britain would stay in the Community? Will he confirm that the negotiations are essentially about economic matters and not the present basic structure of the Community?

Mr. Callaghan: What we are negotiating about is the matters that were put forward in the White Paper. They are being developed in the course of talks, both now and in the future, until I make the full statement early next month. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that there is support for the policy of renegotiation. I wish that it had been taken a little more seriously rather earlier when what we were saying was dismissed.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to his colleagues, in the immediate present and not the distant future the EEC beef mountain has reached 75,000 tons? That is depriving the British public of supplies of beef at reasonable prices. May we be assured that, whatever else happens, one condition of these negotiations will be freedom from the absurdities of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Callaghan: What I have said about the common agricultural policy so far represents our approach to it, and it is desirable that its illiberal characteristics should be removed as far as possible.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his assurance that the Labour Government are renegotiating with a view to staying in the Community. Is he aware that the proposal of a referendum in this country strikes at the very heart of representative democracy?

Mr. Callaghan: This was an essential part of the policy upon which we fought the General Election. Because we did so, we shall, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, carry out our obligation to consult the people, either by this method or by way of a General Election, but my right hon. Friend felt that it would be more likely to be by way of a referendum. I recommend the hon. Gentleman in all friendliness, as I keep recommending a lot of other people, please to read what we said, what we fought the election on and what we are trying to do.

Mr. Sillars: Once he has cleared the major obstacles of renegotiation, will my right hon. Friend look at the device used by the Council of Ministers known as "stopping the clock"? Is he aware that the clock has been stopped and was stopped for a long time before the Labour Party took office and reopened the European issue on regional policy? When George Thomson was in this country a short time ago, did he tell my right hon. Friend when that clock would start again?

Mr. Callaghan: I did not see Mr. Thomson when he was in this country recently, so I did not have a chance to talk with him about it. I should have been happy to see him or anyone else. I seem to spend my life receiving deputations from one country or another.

Mr. Amery: Including the President of the European Parliament?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, including even him, with pleasure; even the right hon. Gentleman, if he makes a request in writing, in due course. As far as the general issue is concerned, we shall carry forward the policy we have enunciated. There is some progress on regional development, but I am not sure that it is yet near agreement.

Mr. Rippon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of support for what the Government propose by way of continuing negotiation, which is largely the content of the Luxembourg speech? Will he consider issuing a White Paper before he next goes to Luxembourg or Brussels in order to indicate what is "continuing negotiation", what is "renegotiation" and exactly what the Government want?

Mr. Callaghan: It is my desire that the House should be kept fully informed on these matters. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his experience, however, when one is renegotiating it is hardly desirable to set out all the cards face upwards on the table before one starts. I shall certainly try to carry the House with me by this kind of information. That was why I published the recent White Paper, which was my major speech at Luxembourg.

Mr. Freud: On the subject of the referendum, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if 18 million people vote to stay in and 11 million vote to come out, the Government will come out? That is the basis on which they are the Government.

Mr. Callaghan: The Government will reach a conclusion in the light of whatever result is shown by the referendum.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the outcome of the talks he has so far conducted in pursuit of the fundamental renegotiation of British membership of the EEC.

Mr. James Callaghan: So far so good, but we have not yet begun detailed talks.

Mr. Biffen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that some anxiety was expressed in recent questions about the non-encounter with Dr. Cornelis Berkhouwer? Will he on a future occasion find an opportunity to meet the good doctor and explain to him that many people feel that the wings of this Parliament were wantonly clipped by Section 2 of the European Communities Act and that a successful renegotiation will restore to this national Parliament law-making capabilities which we have no intention of yielding to a Strasbourg Assembly?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that at the end of the renegotiations Section 2 of the European Communities Act will need to be scrutinised very closely to see how far it fits in with our requirements and with the overall desire of this House to maintain control of its own affairs.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend said a little while ago that there was a long way to go. I am in complete agreement with him. Will he make it clear to the EEC however that if there is any question of this country's becoming a supranational State or joining in a federal organisation we shall have no part in that?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that that is is fairly clear. I assure the House that I was as polite as I usually am in this House when I was talking about it, and I confined myself mainly to questioning this concept and asking what was really meant. That revealed a surprising number of different views and thoughts about what it meant. I am not at all sure that the best thing to do would not be for the Council of Ministers to publish what we in this House call a Green Paper setting out all the varying views on which public opinion could debate.

Mr. Rippon: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that negotiating in good faith means acceptance of the views that he expressed on sovereignty on 9th May 1967?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am sure that it does, although I do not have the reference beside me. What I do not think it involves accepting is the communiqués that were issued in Paris in 1970 or 1972 for which no definition has yet been provided and for which no definition exists.

President of the European Parliament

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he refused to receive a courtesy call from the President of the European Parliament in Luxembourg on 1st April.

Mr. James Callaghan: As I said in answer to a question on 3rd April, I should have liked to have made the acquaintance of a number of people in Luxembourg but, as they seemed to

understand, time did not permit.—[Vol. 871, c. 1261.]

Mr. Hunt: Whom does the right hon. Gentleman think he is kidding? Does not this studied insult to a loyal and staunch friend of this country epitomise the ham-fisted and arrogant way in which the Foreign Secretary has been treating our partners in Europe ever since he took office?

Mr. Callaghan: There were a number of requests from people that we should meet them and a number of people whom I wished to see. Dr. Berkhouwer was one of them, but only one of them, and he is the only one who has complained. When he comes to London, or if I go to Brussels or if I see him in Luxembourg, I shall be delighted to see him and I have no doubt that we shall find ourselves the best of friends.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Foreign Secretary overcome his natural politeness to the President of the European Parliament and tell him, when he sees him, that he should keep his nose out of domestic British affairs instead of referring to the possibilities of referenda in respect of the independence of part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Callaghan: If Dr. Berkhouwer or anyone else wishes to make comments on this matter I shall not object. It all adds to the sum of total information that we collect and the views that we hear on these matters.

Sir D. Dodds-Parker: Will the Foreign Secretary in future show the same good manners on the Continent as he shows from the Treasury Bench in this House?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misled by the Press. Unless he believes that the contents of the speech I made as contained in the White Paper—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman was not there—no more and no less represented bad manners, all I can say is that that was all I said.

South Africa (Trade Visits)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice about the domestic political situation, especially the policy of apartheid, is given to visiting


British business and tradesmen by representatives of his Department in South Africa.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor): Factual information is given to members of trade missions and to any visiting British business man who asks about these matters. Information and advice are available on the effect of apartheid legislation on conditions of employment. In future we shall ask people to pay special attention to the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee on the wages and conditions of African workers in South Africa on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be making a statement later today.

Mr. Huckfield: What kind of advice will my hon. Friend's Department be giving to members of the British Lions rugby football team about visiting South Africa? Will it, for instance, be stressing to that team that the greatest sustenance and encouragement that it could give to the voortrekker spirit, to the laager mentality in the whole policy of apartheid, would be to play all-white teams in a sport in which there is some kind of national pride? Will the Department's officials explain to that team, if it goes, that by playing these matches it will be seen, by Black Africans especially, to be propping up and perpetuating the whole policy of apartheid?

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend is well aware that my right hon. Friends and I totally agree with what he said on the whole question of sporting links with South Africa. We have made clear that we do not think that the Lions rugby tour should go ahead. We think that the tour would be very damaging to what we are trying to do in connection with black Africa.

Lord Balniel: Does the hon. Lady agree with the view that Britain's economic involvement in South Africa should be reduced, a view that is expressed in "Labour's Programme for Britain 1973"?

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out to me that he has read our programme for Britain. I am happy to tell him that the whole question of our trade with

South Africa and its effect upon this country is part of the review we are carrying out. I hope very soon, in conjunction with the Labour Party policy document, to be able to make a statement when the whole review has taken place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. In any case, there is to be a statement later today.

European Policy

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the European policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House in the foreign affairs debate on 19th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 858–74.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If it is the policy of the Government to have no United States Polaris bases, no European deterrent, and cuts in British defence expenditure, what in the Government's view is our European destiny? Is it something like that of Finland or of Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Hattersley: All that this Government have done over the last two months has indicated our wish to talk in terms other than the grandiloquent ones concerning destiny and more related to the realities of our situation. The realities of our situation require renegotiation of our relationship with the Community and a substantial reduction in our defence expenditure.

United States Secretary of State

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the United States Secretary of State.

Mr. James Callaghan: I have at present no firm arrangements for a further meeting with Dr. Kissinger, though there is a constant exchange of views.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister assure the House that, when he does meet the


United States Secretary of State, the question of Vietnam will be raised, in particular the matter of the continued detention of political prisoners by the illiberal Thieu régime and the implementation of Article 21 of the Paris peace agreement under which America promised to contribute to the reconstruction of the country which it so dastardly savaged over the last few years? Will he raise these as matters of great importance and urgency that concern the people of this country?

Mr. Callaghan: The American administration are aware that it is the policy of the Labour Government to support the Paris peace agreement in all its forms. When I was in both South and North Vietnam just over a year ago, I asked that prisoners should be brought to trial—they exist in both areas—and that there should be international teams of inspection. I was referred by each side to the other, and each side told me that if the other would produce its prisoners it would do the same. So far we have not made any progress beyond that point.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that the aggression of the North towards the South has been proved beyond doubt? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear when he meets the American Secretary of State that Britain is still committed to supporting the territorial integrity of South Vietnam?

Mr. Callaghan: The Paris peace agreements provide for that. They provide also for elections in South Vietnam, and these elections should be carried out as soon as it is possible to hold them.

Mr. Kinnock: As we are a party to the Paris agreement, which has accorded equal diplomatic status to the Governments of North and South Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the Provisional Revolutionary Government in North Vietnam similar status to that which is given to the Government of Thieu in South Vietnam?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to that question is "No". There are already two Governments in Vietnam, one in North Vietnam and one in South Vietnam. In the view of the British Government, the introduction of a third Government would not help to settle that

area. The best thing is that there should be free elections in South Vietnam.

Mr. Marten: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the recent deterioration in Anglo-American relations was due largely to the fact that we were members of the Common Market, which tried to speak with one voice, that the voice with which we had to speak was nearly always that of France—the lowest common denominator of all nine—and that the sooner we can speak with our own voice the sooner will Anglo-American relations be on a far better basis?

Mr. Callaghan: There is a problem, so long as the Community is trying to move forward on the political front, about consultation with the United States; and that took up a great deal of the discussions we had recently. I have made clear, I believe with the support of the House, that we regard ourselves as free to consult the United States at any stage of any consultations that are going on with the Community.

United Nations Secretary-General

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend looks forward to seeing Dr. Waldheim as soon as this is mutually convenient. I had a very useful talk with him in New York in April.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the critical situation of many of the developing nations as a result of the oil price increase, will the Foreign Secretary when he next meets Dr. Waldheim press him to convene a conference of developed member States of OECD, COMECON and the Arab oil-producing States so that a more effective system of aiding the developing nations can be worked out, above all on the basis of the relationship of the population of each developed country to its gross national product so that more can be done to mitigate the disastrous effects of the oil price increase on the developing nations?

Mr. Ennals: This has been one of the main issues at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly which has been in session for three weeks and which completes its meetings either today


or tomorrow. Her Majesty's Government have put forward their position very clearly and have taken a positive rôle in the negotiations.

Mr. Rifkind: In view of the indications that Britain may resume involvement in the United Nations Committee on De-colonisation, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, with respect to our policy in Gibraltar, it is the Government's view that Gibraltar is not an area that requires to be decolonised?

Mr. Ennals: I can give that absolute assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been a number of occasions on which the people of Gibraltar have been consulted. Their views have been made clearly known and we have made those views clearly known also to the Committee of 24.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the continued failure of the international community to do anything really effective about providing machinery for the early warning of disasters and adequate relief once disaster has struck? Bearing in mind that millions of people are at risk in this connection, when the right hon. Gentleman is next in contact with the Secretary-General will he impress upon him the need for fresh initiatives in this respect and will he pledge the British Government's support to do what is necessary?

Mr. Ennals: I can say two things in this connection. First, we are looking very carefully at proposals for more effective emergency action when emergencies arise, as they have done so tragically in Africa. Secondly, in relation to the United Nations special session, one of our greatest concerns has been not simply in relation to the words that are used but also to ensure that action is taken to help less developed countries which have been very hard hit by rising prices of oil and other commodities.

EEC—Arabian Co-operation

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the proposal issued by the EEC Governments on 4th March 1974 relating to co-

operation between the European Community and the Arab world.

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing partnership between Europe and the Arab world is of enormous potential value to both regions, and will be give the House the assurance that the British Government will not fall behind their EEC colleagues in supporting it?

Mr. Hattersley: I gladly give the assurance asked for in the second part of my hon. Friend's question, and I agree with the first part and the implications therein.

Vietnam

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Vietnam in view of the continuing state of hostilities.

Mr. Ennals: Our policy is to support the Paris agreement as a framework within which the Vietnamese parties can work out a lasting settlement in Vietnam. We greatly regret the continuation of hostilities in certain areas of Vietnam.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing supply by the United States of America of the most sophisticated military weaponry, including tanks and military aircraft, to the Thieu ré, and will he make clear that we do not approve of this as a means of helping to bring peace? Will he also undertake to give further consideration to the possibility of the recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government as peace cannot be achieved there without bringing all the parties into the final peace agreement?

Mr. Ennals: In a sense, both points have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. We are absolutely committed to the Paris agreement, and any breaches of that agreement or any acts damaging to it—and casualties and warfare are damaging—are deeply regrettable. In answer to the question about recognition, my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear that we recognise one Government in South Vietnam.

Mr. Tebbit: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say that what his right hon. Friend said goes without saying? It


would be helpful to have it on the record that elections are needed not only in the South but in the North, and that they should be free elections in both places.

Mr. Ennals: I repeat that not only are we in favour of peace throughout Vietnam, North and South, but we believe that there should be elections in the North and South and that there should be fulfilment of every part of the Paris agreement.

United Nations Council for Namibia

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to become a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Joan Lestor: We are examining the whole question of Namibia, including our attitude towards the Council for Namibia. I cannot now anticipate the outcome of this review.

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the review is made the Government will accept the 1971 opinion of the International Court of Justice and will support all constructive and effective measures in the United Nations to oblige South Africa to comply with its obligations to withdraw from Namibia? Will she also recall that in the document to which the Foreign Secretary referred earlier this afternoon—the Labour Party's policy on foreign affairs, issued in 1973—it was said that we should be willing to participate in the United Nations Council for Namibia? Will she ensure that nothing is done to imply recognition of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia?

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. I share his general concern about Namibia. In reply to his question about the 1971 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, he will appreciate, as I am sure we all do, that it needs careful examination before we make known our judgment and views on it. Although I am aware of my hon. Friend's impatience, it would not be right for me to anticipate this afternoon the outcome of our examination.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reactivate the work of his team in bringing about a peaceful solution of the problem?

Miss Lestor: The Security Council will have to be recalled to discuss it, and no date has yet been fixed for that. It is a matter for the president to convene the council in consultation with its members. We are all very impatient that a decision should be made quickly.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend express her intense disapproval of the flogging penalties imposed by the courts in Ovamboland?

Miss Lestor: Yes, I certainly will. We all deplore these barbarous practices. We in Britain should take every opportunity to make clear our views. I regret that there have been reports of other cases which we have again taken up with the South African Government.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While agreeing with the Government that they should think very carfeully about their policy towards South-West Africa, may I ask that Her Majesty's Government, as a major contributor to the United Nations Organisation, should not become involved in major expenditure and should scrutinise the expenditure on the administration which apparently exists in the United Nations of a territory which it cannot enter?

Miss Lestor: This is really another question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to put down a specific question on this matter, I should be very pleased to answer it.

Brussels

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to pay a further visit to Brussels.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend expects to visit Brussels for the Council of Ministers' meeting on 7th May.

Mr. McCrindle: When next he visits Brussels, or preferably before, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of confirming that Britain has no intention of following the example of the Italian Government yesterday in the


limitation of imports? We understand the Government's policy of renegotiating the terms of entry, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as long as we remain members we shall fulfil our obligations under the treaty?

Mr. Hattersley: We have made very clear how we shall behave during the period of renegotiation—that is, not only to observe the terms of the treaties but to take our part in on-going business in so far as that is consistent with our renegotiation objectives.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: In these comprehensive renegotiations, will the Government be very careful not to renegotiate inadvertently those parts of the treaties which make certain foodstuffs cheaper for British housewives?

Mr. Hattersley: The Government are very conscious of that. I hope that my hon. Friend is conscious also of the fact that, while temporarily the CAP system may be working on our side, the longterm implication of the CAP is that we may move into periods when it is very much working against us. Clearly what the Government need is a régime in which we can look forward with some certainty to having a reasonable system of agricultural financing in all conditions and all circumstances.

Mr. Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the renegotiations will encompass the regional policy fund? Is he not aware that there are rumours in Brussels that the size of the fund waiting on the table for him to accept is in the region of 1,450 million units of account?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, our renegotiations include attitudes towards both the regional fund and regional policy. I urge the hon. Gentleman, however, to understand that rumours of all kinds emanate from Brussels, and the one he has just described is one of the most extraordinary rumours I have heard coming from that place in the last eight weeks.

Tanzania (Expelled Correspondent)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a protest over the case of Mr. David Martin, correspondent to the Observer and the BBC, who was expelled from Tanzania

after 10 years' work there at 24 hours' notice because of his reporting of the actions of General Amin of Uganda.

Miss Joan Lestor: No, Sir. We naturally regret the short notice which was given to Mr. Martin, and our High Commissioner tried unsuccessfully to obtain an extension of this time limit. We cannot, however, challenge the right of a sovereign Government to expel an alien.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is not the first time that the Government of Tanzania have behaved towards a British subject in a manner which is a little less than civilised? Is it not time that we made known our views? Does the Under-Secretary accept that when Governments do this kind of thing the attitude of the Foreign Office towards an offending Government should show no discrimination as between Left-wing Governments and Right-wing Governments?

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to reassure him that there is no question of discrimination against Left-wing Governments, Right-wing Governments or any other kind of Government. It is a fact, however we deplore it, that neither the Tanzanian authorities nor any other Government have to explain why they have expelled an alien. There is very little we can do about that, however concerned we may be.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the number of journalists and others who have been expelled from African territories is increasing and is rapidly becoming a standard which is undermining good relations with this country? Will the Minister make a protest and tell High Commissioners to stand up for the rights of British subjects?

Miss Lestor: I am honestly not absolutely certain whether the number of journalists and others being expelled has increased. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on this subject, I shall certainly answer and take up his other comments.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my hon. Friend accept that we are perfectly entitled to go a good deal further than she has suggested and press the President


of the country concerned, who is a personal friend of many hon. Members, to be more forthcoming about giving information? Has not a bona fide correspondent a right to freedom in his reporting? Will my hon. Friend take further action in this matter?

Miss Lestor: I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. If hon. Members are concerned—and there is concern about this—my hon. Friend might like to see me to discuss further what could be done.

Political Offenders

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards raising at the United Nations the matter of the treatment of political offenders.

Mr. Ennals: Our policy is to play an active and constructive rôle at the United Nations in the promotion of human rights, and we shall support practical measures designed to protect political freedoms and improve the treatment of prisoners, whether political or non-political.

Mr. Whitehead: In line with that very welcome declaration, will my right hon. Friend draw attention, through our Ambassador at the United Nations, to the growing barbarous practice of incarcerating political dissidents in mental hospitals, and will he link such observations with our very strong feelings about the case of Vladimir Bukovski, who is in a Soviet labour camp precisely because he communicated information about these practices to Western psychiatrists?

Mr. Ennals: We have already made known our views on what I entirely agree with my hon. Friend is a barbarous practice. This issue has been referred to in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I share my hon. Friend's concern about it.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the Soviet Ambassador, when either of them next sees him in London, that neither Russia nor any other nation can be regarded as a civilised nation while people are as barbarously treated as they are, not only in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred but

in the case of the many Soviet Jews and Christians whose names have been in the headlines in recent weeks?

Mr. Ennals: It is clear that Members on both sides of the House could voice criticisms about situations in all parts of the world. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government regret any breaches of freedom and any acts of torture which may be committed in any part of the world, not only in one part.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Has this matter been raised by the United Kingdom delegates to the World Health Organisation?

Mr. Ennals: I should need notice of that question.

European Parliament

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to ascertain and publish the names of the original Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who are still members of the European Parliament.

Mr. Hattersley: All of those originally designated by this House in the resolution of 19th December 1972 remain members of the European Assembly. Their names appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[Vol. 848, c. 1253.]

Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend, in any information he publishes in this connection, show which of the parliamentary parties these representatives represent, whether Conservative or Labour? Further in view of the Labour Party's policy on renegotiating terms of entry, what co-operation are our permanent delegates receiving from the Government on the lines of renegotiation?

Mr. Hattersley: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe—of course, I am open to correction—that there are conventions of this House which prevent party labels from being put against the names of right hon. and hon. Members when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. but it is well known which parties take their places in the Assembly and which do not.
The second half of my hon. Friend's question can be answered simply. The Government are providing for all delegates to the Assembly the same sort of


written information that we provide for any right hon. and hon. Members of this House when they take part in any other activity concerned with foreign affairs, and that will continue to be our practice.

Mr. Hill: In view of the very critical renegotiations which are going on, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is absolutely essential to send delegations to the European Parliament so that the hon. Gentleman may be fed back with information about the detailed work of the committees?

Mr. Hattersley: No. Sir, I do not agree with that. I believe that were the Government now to change their established position, it would put a very substantial question mark against the seriousness of our intention to renegotiate. I say that notwithstanding the fact that on two occasions in this House I voted for the Labour Party to be represented at Strasbourg, but I do not think that that would now be in the best interests of our renegotiation strategy.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandalous state of affairs that there are ex-Tory Members of Parliament supposedly representing Britain in the European Assembly who are making money out of the British tax-payer, fiddling their accounts by going there on charter flights? Now, to make the matter even worse, we have the further information that members of the European Assembly are trotting around with three or four different coloured Biro pens in their pockets, signing and forging signatures of people who were supposed to be attending the Assembly and drawing money in their name.

Mr. Hattersley: The final part of my hon. Friend's question contains very serious implications and allegations, and I certainly have no intention of commenting on them. As to the tone and nature of the question, I hope that he does not become infected with the disease of finding scandal where there is none.

Mr. Marten: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to define exactly whom these delegates to the European Assembly represent? It may be within his recollection that a very short time ago this House declared that it opposed certain proposals for a European driving licence. It is only

recently that this matter was debated in the European Assembly, and our delegates did not even oppose the amended proposition.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that all those who have taken different views from those of their own parties about individual matters, as the hon. Gentleman and I have both done in our time, know that there is always some ambiguity about these matters, and individual delegates have to decide whether they are representing their own judgment or some party alignment.

Law of the Sea

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British position at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference with regard to fisheries limits and territorial waters.

Mr. Ennals: In accordance with my undertaking to the House on 27th March, I am convening a seminar on 15th May at which both hon. Members and other interested parties will be able to make their views known on all aspects of our policy at the conference. Meanwhile, I am not in a position to make a statement on particular aspects of our policy.—[Vol. 871, c. 441–3.]

Mr. Wall: I thank the Minister for convening the seminar, which I think will be very useful. Is he considering co-ordinating EEC policy on fisheries limits or will it be merely a British policy? It seems to some of us that if the Minister could obtain an EEC policy it might be more effective at the conference.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment on the decision to call the conference. I hope that he and other hon. Members will take part. We are, of course, in consultation with our colleagues in the EEC and in other countries about the conference, but I do not want to take any firm position in advance of the seminar, which will be held for the purpose of consultation.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not for one moment want to embarrass the Minister, but will he note that there is all-party support for the extension of limits to 200 miles? The fishing industry is delighted, but will my right hon. Friend


note that we must not be chauvinistic about this? We must allow landlocked nations such as East Germany and Poland, which have fine fishing fleets, to have access under the licence system to the waters in and about these islands

Mr. Ennals: I am aware that the United Kingdom fishing industry has given a good deal of support to the extension to the 200-mile fishery zone. I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend, which has also been made in representations from other quarters, that we should look carefully at international concerns as well as at national ones.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I join in congratulating the Minister on his decision to convene a seminar, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is still concern among fishing interests in Scotland that they have not yet been consulted by the Government over the pro-positions to be put forward at the conference? Is he also aware that there is great support there for the 200-mile limit, which we believe will guarantee the future of the fishing industry?

Mr. Ennals: Apart from consultations that are taking place at official level, invitations have now gone out to a large number of organisations in connection with the conference. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind people whom he thinks should be invited, I should be most grateful if he would let me know as quickly as he can.

Atlantic Alliance

Lord Balniel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the Atlantic Alliance.

Mr. Hattersley: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the Government's policy towards the North Atlantic Alliance set out in the Gracious Speech.—[Vol. 870, c. 43–4.]

Lord Balniel: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Government were elected to seek, as a first step, the removal of the American Polaris bases in Holy Loch? Have negotiations begun on that?

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made the position absolutely clear on 9th April,

when he said that the Polaris Holy Loch situation was part of a wider and longer negotiating process. I have nothing to add to the answer he gave then.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that our relations with the United States are a good deal less sour since the Conservative Government left office?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that is very true and very visible.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Criteria

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will list the political criteria which she takes into account in making a decision on which countries should be in receipt of overseas aid.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will list the political criteria taken into account in decisions to give or deny aid to developing countries.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what political criteria she employs in her decisions to grant aid or other assistance to foreign countries.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will indicate all the criteria taken into account in making decisions to provide overseas aid.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): The major criteria are the relative economic need for aid and its developmental value for the people of the country concerned. As was the case with my predecessor, any decision involving political criteria is taken on its merits.

Mr. Adley: I welcome that answer, but can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the political complexion of the prospective recipient, be it Chile or Uganda. is not the governing factor in these decisions?

Mrs. Hart: It is true to say that the political complexion of a Government is not a major criterion. Actions involving events which offend the attitude of many


people in many parts of the world can be, but that is rather separate from the political complexion of the Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Would it not be a reasonable criterion to employ, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to say that we are no longer a great Power, that we must dissociate from the dictators and that when the barricades go up we must know which side we are on? We know what side Opposition Members are on, which is also a useful guide. Would it not be reasonable to employ democracy as a major criterion in the granting of aid?

Mrs. Hart: That was probably implicit in what I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)—that it is not so much the political complexion of Governments as when Governments, clearly by their actions, arouse tremendous emotion. I can think of instances when my predecessor took similar action—Uganda was one, and another concerned the more limited action that the Government took, which we supported at the time, in relation to Pakistan and Bangladesh when events in Bangladesh deeply concerned many people here. Those were not precisely political criteria, but they were instances where conscience was affronted in relation to democracy and other aspects.

Mr. Tebbit: First, will the right hon. Lady accept my congratulations on her sturdy even if silent support for her Government's policy of help, even if not aid, for Chile by the export of warships? Secondly, does she agree that one of the criteria she should take into account, if she is taking political criteria into account in these matters of aid, is whether there is freedom for journalists to come and go to a country and whether British subjects are held in prison without trial in that country? Will the right hon. Lady look at our policy on aid towards countries that indulge in these practices, imprisoning British citizens without trial?

Mrs. Hart: To take the last point of the hon. Gentleman's question first, in all these cases my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is always assiduous in protecting the rights of British subjects. To take the middle part of the hon. Gentleman's question, while one is prepared to accept and welcome the free visits of journalists to

see all that is to be seen, I cannot accept that in any of the journalistic reports of recent events in Chile there has been such freedom of reporting. On the first part, it comes a little amiss from the hon. Gentleman, who has opposed the suspension of aid to Chile, to welcome anything that may or may not be done by this Government in other respects towards Chile.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that successive investigations by all-party groups in the House have consistently said that the first criterion must be the needs of the people of the area? Will she please stick to that?

Mrs. Hart: The needs of the people can be properly met only by a Government whose basic policy is to care for them. The trouble in Chile has been that the intervention in democracy—the overthrow of democracy—has prevented this criterion from being satisfied.

Mr. Wood: Does the right hon. Lady remember criticising the merger by the previous Government of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Foreign Office as totally bad and foolish—they were strong words—on the ground that it would introduce foreign policy considerations into the question of aid? Can she say when she decided to modify that view and why?

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman and I have had a similar exchange on this matter before. I suggest that he is not totally aware of my views. I should be happy to send him one or two examples of what I have written explaining those views fully.
This is a serious question and there is no doubt that it stretches far beyond the question of Chile. What the Ministry of Overseas Development should be concerned about is the development of interests related to the poverty and the needs of the people we are trying to help. To some extent that means inevitably that we must be concerned not with the nature of government, but with what Governments are doing. Some Governments are carrying out radical reconstruction of their societies designed to help the people in most need. That is bound to come into the question of criteria for benefiting the people in greatest need.

Sir G. de Freitas: In looking at the question of aid, will the Government consider our special obligations to the countries that were our former colonies in Africa and Asia which happen to be particularly large and which have suffered greatly from the high cost of oil which is required for transport?

Mrs. Hart: As I think my right hon. Friend knows, the bulk of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia. I am keenly aware, as I expressed to some of my colleagues in the Council of Development Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday, of the particular needs of the Asian Commonwealth countries in that respect.

Aid Programme

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will review the British aid programme in view of the change in the price of oil and other commodities which has taken place in the last two years.

Mrs. Hart: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 5th April.—[Vol. 871, c. 479.]

Mr. Goodhart: May I remind the Minister that on 30th January she accepted that there was a strong case for taking a completely new look at our aid programme in view of the dramatic change in commodity prices? In a wide-ranging review of our aid commitments, will the right hon. Lady consider increasing dramatically the proportion of our aid that is earmarked for disaster relief?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that, although I cannot yet give the results of our review, I am taking a close look at how we should organise disaster relief in so far as it concerns my Ministry and what we should do within our aid framework to provide continuing amounts for that purpose. It is clear that the famine and disaster situation is not likely to be much improved in the next year or two. Therefore, we must take full account of that situation.

Sahelian Africa

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when was the most recent date on which the Council of

Ministers of the EEC considered proposals for the relief of famine in the Sahel region of West Africa; what decisions it took; and when this matter will be considered again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. William Price): On 10th December 1973 the Council approved provision in the 1974 Community budget totalling 40 million units of account—that is, the equivalent of about £17 million—for relief and rehabilitation. It also agreed that 130,000 tons of cereals, 6,000 tons of butter oil and 14,000 tons of skimmed milk powder should be sent to these countries.

Mr. Hooley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the special interest he personally has taken in this disastrous situation and on taking the trouble to look at the matter on the ground for himself. Will he tell us what planning is now going on to deal with what is clearly a long-term disaster area in Africa, where the problem might stretch over a number of years? Is any serious effort being made to set up a planning organisation in Brussels that would look in depth at the problem and provide long-term assistance?

Mr. Price: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have just spent 10 days in the drought area, and I have seen sights that I shall never forget. A massive international operation is under way, with 700,000 tons of food being sent to the area, but there is a good deal of evidence that much of that aid is arriving late. We are having detailed discussions with everyone concerned in order to speed up the operation and ensure that no problems arise in future. The question of long-term planning is under active consideration both in my Ministry and in Brussels. In my view, this is a matter of overriding concern.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the administration of this aid is being carried out satisfactorily? Is there not a crying need for Europe to send in administrators to ensure that the aid gets to those who are in most need of it?

Mr. Price: I think that there have been problems, and there still are problems. We are doing all we can to


sort them out, but I think it is fair to say that had it not been for the international operation many millions of people would be dead.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming everything that can be done to help the people of this region, may I take it that in this and in other disasters that may occur there will be no ideological consideration in the matter and we shall try to give help to people who need it?

Mr. Price: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. I saw thousands of children dying on their feet. As far as I am concerned, that is not a matter of ideology; it is a simple matter of getting food to people who are desperate.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In considering what assistance the EEC countries might give in circumstances like this, what account will Her Majesty's Government take of the recent report by the Select Committee on Overseas Development, and when do they expect to respond to its recommendations?

Mr. Price: We shall certainly take due note of all that has been said by the Select Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is that my right hon. Friend will deal with the report in due course.

FAMILY PRACTITIONER COMMITTEES

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) drew attention in the House on Monday, and on which you, Mr. Speaker, gave a ruling yesterday.
These regulations, which govern the procedure for the investigation of complaints against family practitioners, are the latest in a series dating from 1948. It was necessary to make new regulations to come into operation on 1st April 1974 to take account of the changes in the administrative structure of the National Health Service introduced by the reorganisation Act; and the opportunity

was taken to make some other changes that had been suggested by interested bodies. Draft regulations were sent for comment to these bodies—including the Council on Tribunals, which we have a statutory obligation to consult—in mid-November, but, because of the difficulty of reconciling comments on different aspects of the regulations, a finally agreed version was not achieved in time for the regulations to be made by my predecessor.
Accordingly, I was faced with the necessity of making these and other statutory instruments relating to the reorganisation of the National Health Service at very short notice. These regulations were made on 15th March, 10 days after I took office, but, because of the delay in printing at the time of the three-day week, were not laid before the House until 29th March. The date of operation could not be deferred beyond 1st April since the bodies responsible for operating the procedure under the old regulations were dissolved from that date, and in the absence of new regulations persons with complaints would have been unable to have them considered.
I turn now to the particular provision which my hon. Friend has criticised. The previous regulations approved by Parliament allowed a complainant or practitioner involved in the investigation of the complaint to be assisted at the hearing by some other person in the presentation of his case, but precluded any barrister or solicitor paid for his services, or other paid advocate, from addressing the service committee or examining or cross-examining witnesses. The Patients' Association had represented that, despite this provision, the procedure gave an undue advantage to medical, dental and other practitioners, since barristers and solicitors were allowed to act for them so long as they were not paid, and professional people were more likely than a patient to have lawyers among their friends who would assist them.
For this reason, the regulations now before the House provide that no barrister or solicitor, whether paid or unpaid, should be entitled to address the service committee or examine or cross-examine witnesses, though I must emphasise that he would still be able to attend the hearing and assist his client in other respects. The attention of the Council on Tribunals and of the appropriate organisations interested was


specifically drawn to this proposal and none objected to it.
The new provision did not in any way restrict the right of the generality of hon. Members to take part in these procedures on behalf of their constituents; but I regret that we overlooked the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) on Monday, that one consequence would be to debar Members who are legally qualified from doing all they might wish in the interest of their constituents. I fully accept that this cannot be justified. I am required by statute to consult the Council on Tribunals before changing the regulations. I propose to put before it immediately amending regulations intended to remove this limitation on the activities of Members. Meanwhile, the Hertfordshire Family Practitioner Committee has agreed to postpone the hearing in which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford is concerned.
I understand that the same situation applies in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend will be taking action to deal with it,

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, but there are one or two points to which I should draw her attention.
I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulty about these regulations being brought into force. This morning, I telephoned the Journal Office and found that this statutory instrument came into the office on 29th March, a Friday, and that no Member of Parliament could have had any knowledge of the fact that it existed until the Monday following, by which time it already had the force of law. Therefore, it was impossible for any hon. Member or for the House to voice objection to it. I appreciate the difficulties facing my right hon. Friend, but it is monstrous that a statutory instrument should be brought into the House—pushed under the door, as it were—and gain the force of law without Parliament being able to rule on it. Will she ensure that in future a statutory instrument figuratively lies on the Table for at least three weeks before it becomes law?
Second, will my right hon. Friend make a change in what she said? She told

the House that the inquiry will now be postponed. That will enable me, when the regulations are amended, to appear. However, I must inform her that the parents of this child are in a terrible state. They want this inquiry over as soon as possible. I wonder whether, in all the circumstances, it would be possible to use some machinery which would exempt me from the regulations. I intended to appear in any event and to warn the committee that, if it prevented me addressing it, it would be interfering with the duties of a Member of Parliament towards his constituents and, therefore, might be guilty of contempt of the House. I do not want to invoke that procedure. I wonder whether anything else can be done.

Mrs. Castle: I feel that my hon. Friend has been less than gracious about my reponse to the point that he made. I should have thought that he would appreciate that my explanation showed that the change in the regulations was made in response to approaches and comments made by the Patients' Association, which felt that this change would strengthen patients' rights in these hearings. I know that my hon. Friend's major concern is to strengthen patients' rights. I have explained that, quite without our intention, the side-effect of this change on the position of Members of Parliament who are also barristers or solicitors was not foreseen. I have taken the steps necessary to change that position as quickly as lies within my statutory power to do. I should have thought, therefore, that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw some of the remarks that he made on Monday when he said that these changes were obviously made with him in mind and that they were disgraceful forms of back-door politics.

Mr. English: That was a jest.

Mrs. Castle: I could take that as a jest. I am willing to thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention so that it could be remedied. But I had hoped that he would thank me for the response that I have made.
Regarding the timetable, I have already explained that the difficulty and delay in allowing propert time for consideration of these regulations arose from the fact, first, that there had been an election and,


second, that I was bound to introduce regulations by 1st April or no machinery would have existed. I am statutorily bound to consult the Council on Tribunals and I must be given time to do that.

Mr. Tuck: I should like to withdraw the statement that I made on Monday. It was made only in jest. I do not want my right hon. Friend to think any less of me because I made it. It was made in jest and I naturally withdraw it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Does the right hon. Lady accept that most hon. Members on both sides of the House follow her explanation of the difficulties of timing with which she was faced arising from the relationship between the statutory and the electoral timetables? However, does she agree—I say this in no sense tendentiously—that hon. Members on both sides equally attach high importance to the early availability in print of instruments of this kind so that they may be considered as far as possible by the House before they come into force? I say that not critically, but to secure her undertaking in that respect.
Will the right hon. Lady accept also that I appreciate the motivation for trying to achieve a balance of representation before informal bodies, which these service committees are? But when the amendment that she proposes, which in itself seems welcome, is considered by the Council on Tribunals, will she ask the council to look again at the recommendation by the Franks Committee, in paragraph 87 of its report, to the effect that, in the interest of citizens, the right to call upon the services of a legal representative should be curtailed only in the most exceptional circumstances where it is clear that the interests of applicants generally would be better served by a restriction?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that consideration is given also to the possibility, no doubt unintended, that the change that is to be made might inadvertently place Members of Parliament in a privileged position against their professional competitors and set them free to appear before such bodies on payment of a fee?

Mrs. Castle: On the first point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I give the assurance for which he asked. I am well aware of the total desirability

of giving the House proper time for consideration of regulations. I am grateful to him for appreciating that we were in an exceptional situation owing to a concatenation of circumstances—the election and the 1st April deadline which I had to meet for new regulations of some kind.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's later remarks show the difficulties facing us in dealing with this situation. I accept that priority must be given to the rights of Members of Parliament to represent their constituents. This is paramount. However, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there may be some complaints about the fall-out of the proposed change as well.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the lesson from this business that it is unacceptable for documents to be notionally laid on the Table when they are not physically available to Members? This is far from being the first time it has happened, even in the past few years. Will she accept that, when a Minister finds himself or herself in this position, it is incumbent on the Minister to have the document written out in longhand if necessary, so that it is available to Members? Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as it goes beyond her departmental responsibilities. in order that a procedural change may be made so that we do not accept notional laying of documents when they are not in fact available to Members?

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate the importance of that point. I am sure that it has been noted in the right quarters. It happens that in this case the non-availability is not one of my alleged crimes.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady has explained some of the difficulties in which she finds herself in reaching a balanced judgment about the matter. She justified the regulations, with which the previous administration were also concerned, on the basis that a professional person is more likely to know a barrister who can represent him in a voluntary capacity. That is an anomaly she has set out to remove by her announcement, but she has now created the further anomaly that a citizen represented in Parliament by a barrister or solicitor will have an advantage over other citizens represented by


Members of Parliament with no legal qualifications. Will the right hon. Lady take that into account when considering the regulations again?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that it is not a simple question of black or white. Difficulties can be argued in either direction. I have said merely that I believe that the regulation will have to be amended. I shall have to put my proposals before the Council on Tribunals. It looks as though going back to the previous situation is the only way out of this complex problem without creating too many anomalies.

Dr. Winstanley: Some of us sometimes feel that the generality of Members, to use the right hon. Lady's own phrase, are in fact lawyers. We all warmly welcome the speedy way in which the right hon. Lady has removed an impediment which threatened to prevent the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) from fulfilling his functions as a Member of Parliament. Will she remember that it is not only the complainants but sometimes doctors, too, who feel that the tribunals are not wholly satisfactory and that they sometimes appear to usurp functions more properly belonging to the courts? If she ever thinks of allowing legal representation, will the right hon. Lady accept that allowing legal aid will then be essential?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has received my statement. We propose to have a fundamental review of the regulations in the Department before the end of the year, because we want to see how they are working in practice. I had to ensure that there was some complaints machinery by 1st April, because the situation I inherited was extremely urgent. We had to act quickly, but in doing so we always had in mind that there would be a review later.
In speaking of legal aid, the hon. Gentleman raises a much wider question. Whatever its merits, the step which he proposes would be very expensive. In my Department alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of tribunals to which legal aid would have to apply, and there are other Departments concerned. What I am dealing with this afternoon is purely my attempt to remedy, in the best way I

can think of, a situation which has arisen in the short term.

SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH FIRMS)

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's initial views on the recommendations in the Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee on the wages and conditions of African workers employed by British firms in South Africa.
This was a somewhat unusual field of inquiry for a Select Committee. The whole House will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) and his colleagues on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee on the thoroughness of this inquiry and the admirable report which they have produced.
We accept the main recommendation that the Government should issue amplified guidance to British firms on the wages and working conditions of African workers. The report contains an admirably full and clear statement of recommended practices which, if implemented conscientiously, could lead to very real improvements.
As recommended by the Committee, I am now arranging to give the Code of Practice wide publicity. I shall write personally to those British firms with South African interests. My letter and the text will be issued to the Press, as will the list of those to whom I am writing. Naturally we also accept that the guidances should be up-dated when necessary.
Key recommendations in the guidelines are that no British firm in South Africa should pay adult male African employees wages below the appropriate poverty datum level, and that all firms should aim within a set timetable to pay minimum wages equal to the minimum earnings level broadly equivalent to poverty datum level plus 50 per cent. Elsewhere the report rightly stresses the responsibility of parent firms for the employment practices of South African affiliates. These are the basic lessons of the inquiry and it is now for industry to put them into practice.
The report contained a number of other recommendations on informing and advising firms on overseas industrial relations and on monitoring their performance. These proposals are being given urgent and careful study by the Departments concerned as well as consultation with both sides of industry. I shall inform the House of the outcome in due course.

Mr. Heseltine: I wish first to ask the right hon. Gentleman a general question. Does he not consider that it would be helpful to British companies trading in South Africa, and in other countries of whose internal policies the Government disapprove, if there were a comprehensive statement outlining the terms on which the commercial interests of British companies will be allowed to continue to develop in the future? However many doubts the Government may have about the internal policies of some nations' governments, it surely cannot be right for the commercial activities of our companies to be continually interrupted by political statements at home.
Next I have three detailed questions. First, do the Government intend to instruct the staff of the British Embassy in South Africa to seek out British subsidiaries to persuade them to follow the proposed guidelines? Secondly, what steps are intended to get those subsidiary companies to produce and publish reports of the way in which they have conformed to the guidelines? Thirdly, what time-scale has the Minister within which he hopes to report to the House on the other considerations?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman was not over-forthcoming in his reception of a report which deserves the support of both sides of the House—and I think and hope has the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. John Ellis: Has it?

Mr. Shore: I hope so. As for a comprehensive statement of Government policy on their commercial relationships with various countries, that was alluded to earlier in Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Questions, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Having issued the guidelines, I must clearly have consultations with the firms concerned and consider, as I am conidering, how we can up-date information and what means we have of monitoring the whole performance of British firms in South Africa. We are determined to keep pressure on firms, although I am glad to say that initially at any rate, to judge from what firms have said already, there has been a very good response to the report.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As a member of the committee, I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he has promulgated the code as part of Government practice. I also warmly thank him for bringing an element of moral judgment into the performance of this Government in overseas affairs. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the process to look at the performance of British companies in parts of the world other than South Africa, where there is rather disturbing prima facie evidence?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Certainly there has to be some element of moral judgment in these matters. We have to get the right balance. We shall give further thought to his interesting suggestion that this kind of inquiry might be extended to British firms in other countries. The South African situation is almost unique. It has special feautures. Although the poverty problem is general in the rest of the world, the particular mix of elements that makes the South African situation so intractable—to many of us so unacceptable—is peculiar to South Africa.

Mr. David Steel: It now seems to be more than a formality, in view of what the official Opposition spokesman said, to say that we on the Liberal benches welcome the report, the work put into it and its findings. The Secretary of State said that it was a somewhat unusual field of inquiry. Will he not also pay tribute to the investigations of the British Press in this matter which led to the setting up of the Committee. Does he not agree—certainly I believe this to be so from my own observations 18 months ago in South Africa—that British industry on the whole tended to lay too much stress on its good record of fringe benefits and not enough on making real efforts to raise the


basic living standards so that there was a more equal pay situation between the races?

Mr. Shore: I agree with the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that perhaps too much emphasis has been laid on fringe benefits, as he puts it, instead of on the raising of basic living standards. I thank him for his welcome of the Government's response to the report. I gladly associate myself with his tribute to the Press. The Press does not always earn bouquets—it does not always deserve them—but in this case I think that The Guardian deserves the thanks of us all.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the inquiry has already had the effect of creating a considerable improvement in many employment practices in South Africa? Does he not further agree that it is much more important to continue encouraging good employment practices which operate to the advantage of black African workers rather than to have a withdrawal of investment, which would cause hardship and unemployment? With reference to paragraph 190 and what the right hon. Gentleman said about monitoring and future publicity, may I ask him to ensure that, if publicity is to be given in future to employment practices, it is given just as much to good practices which set high standards as it is to bad practices which need to be improved?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made a contribution to this report and I take particular note of the suggestion he made. He has a fair point. Where good practices are being followed it will be helpful for them to be more widely disseminated for the benefit of other British firms at work in South Africa. I entirely agree with what he said about the importance of employment practices. There is an enormous amount that can be done, even within the restrictive laws of South Africa. There are some good employment practices which promote opportunities for the advancement of black Africans in British firms.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend rebut the point made by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman that this is political interference? Is he aware that for many of us on this side of the

House it is rather a moral question? Is he further aware that we feel strongly that while firms—the interests of which seem dear to some Tory Members—are making profits in South Africa, these steps should be taken? Does he realise that my hon. Friends are prepared to take this view even though it may affect trade unionists who have jobs with these firms in this country and that we are prepared to go out into the country and explain that? Is it not particularly unhappy that this statement, which has been so well received on the whole, should be treated in this niggardly way by the Opposition?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that this requires a moral as well as a political judgment. This was an all-party report and it has done a service for us all. I welcome the report warmly because it has given an opportunity to do something practical to help the millions of under-privileged and exploited black people in South Africa. It lies within the power of British firms to improve the living standards and opportunities of these people. In producing its report and recommendations the committee has, I hope, done a service to the people of South Africa as well as to British firms here.

Mr. Goodhew: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would use pressure on British companies operating in South Africa. Does this mean that he will pressurise the boards of companies to act against the interests of their owners, the shareholders—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Yes"] —which might well be the pension funds of trade unionists? Does he not think it dangerous for the Government to start using pressure to prevent companies from acting normally within the law of this country or of the country in which they are operating?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for very many people in the House. At least, I hope he is not. In undertaking the inquiry and publishing its report the committee is exerting some moral pressure on British firms. I shall certainly add to that pressure.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his honest, humane and civilised words will echo and re-echo throughout the English-speaking world?


Will he turn his attention next to that dependent territory of the Commonwealth. Hong Kong, where workers in their millions, with yellow skins, not black skins are working under equally bad conditions? Is he aware that they do not have a legal framework within which collectively to bargain and increase their wages?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. I can assure him that I shall look carefully at what he said about the conditions of workers in Hong Kong.

Mr. Evelyn King: However desirable this reform may be—and probably it is desirable—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that there is a point of principle involved which should be watched? He referred, as a Minister, to bringing pressure to bear upon British citizens. It may well be that he ought to do it. If he is to do that—and it may go wider than South Africa—ought he not to seek legislative sanction to give him the power to do it? If once we assume that a Minister in one area can, without legislative sanction pressurise British citizens, it goes far wider than South Africa.

Mr. Shore: If the pressure of publicity as a moral argument needs to be reinforced in the light of experience, it will be up to me or my successor to come to the House and ask for powers.

Mr. Heseltine: May I clarify a point? Everyone in this House understands that the Government of which I was a member had clearly made it obvious to everyone that they, too, had guidelines to which British exporters were expected to conform when dealing with South Africa. There is no issue of principle involved. The issue on which I sought to draw the Minister is that raised by his hon. Friends—namely, that if there is to be a continuation of announcements of this sort, would it not be better to deal with the matter in one clear policy statement so that exporters could know where they have a clear commercial future? It is this uncertainty element to which I sought to refer.

Mr. Shore: I think the hon. Gentleman has got this very confused. This statement and the report is about how British firms with subsidiaries in South

Africa should conduct their affairs. I am not aware of a mass of other such reports—although some of my hon. Friends would like them—dealing with other countries. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the report again. When he has done so, I hope he will find it a little more welcome than he appeared to find it a few minutes ago.

TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS BILL

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow hospitals to take the organs, such as kidneys, of any patient, once clinical death has been established, other than those of a deceased person who has contracted out during his lifetime by registering, on a central computer, his desire not to donate organs.
If for the fourth time in four years and the second time in three months I seek to take the prime time of the House in introducing a Ten Minutes Rule Bill on the transplant of human organs it is because we must face the kind of harrowing situation that many hon. Members have faced in their constituency business.
Briefly, it boils down to the kind of case that we have all had, where because of a shortage of matching tissue, particularly kidneys, some young or middle-aged person who would be alive today is not alive. Some of us had hoped that the kidney donor card scheme which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) would be a success. But the reality of the situation is that very few organs have been forthcoming under that scheme, and for a very understandable reason. Most of us think that accidents are things that happen not to us but to other people. Therefore, we do not bother to carry with us the donor cards. It is no great surprise, as the right hon. Gentleman was warned by more expert authorities than I, that the organs have not been forthcoming in the quantities that were needed.
There is a further complication that is known to many hon. Members. It is that in coroners' courts there is very grave doubt whether a kidney card is legal in relation to the wishes of the relatives of a victim who has been killed in a road crash or elsewhere. Therefore, there is scope


for a change of the law in relation to coroners' courts, because there are many coroners who, understandably, in order to protect themselves and their court, will not allow hospitals to take out organs, at any rate within the time before deterioration sets in.
Therefore, the guts of the Bill that I seek to introduce is to provide for a system of contracting out to allow hospitals to take after their death the organs of anyone who comes to them other than those who have taken trouble during their lifetime to register with a central computer—probably in Bristol—to the effect that they do not want their organs taken should they die suddenly or in an accident. I add in parenthesis that, because of recent publicity, many of us would like to see a system whereby clinical death is established in such circumstances not by one but by two doctors. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, who is at present on the Government Front Bench, will know that there have been certain cases in his city of Aberdeen, a very progressive city medically, and he will know exactly why I think that the establishment of clinical death by two doctors is important.
In support of the proposition that I am putting forward, I draw the attention of hon. Members to an appalling situation that exists at present whereby a hospital has to telephone the relatives of the victim at the point of maximum grief to ask the terrible question "Can we have the organs of your loved one?" Can the House imagine what it is like for someone who has been bereaved perhaps 30 minutes previously, especially a parent, to have to answer off the cuff a "yes" or "no" question? There is a good deal of evidence that people do not give the answers that they might have given in cold blood when they were less distressed. Therefore, this is a decision which really ought to be taken in the quiet of the home rather than at a point of maximum stress.
The House may say "Is it really as necessary as all this to have these organs?" I can only go by Roy Calne, Professor of Surgery at Addenbrooke's, who says that at least 1,000 people in this country each year would have been kept alive, many of them working, had

the organs been available—particularly kidneys. That is the professional opinion of the surgeon who probably does more transplants than anyone else in Britain.
Another question for the House is whether this would be acceptable to public opinion. In West Lothian, which is a typical industrial area in the north of our country, in 1969 I conducted a very detailed survey for the late Richard Crossman, whose PPS I was, visiting 1,000 homes. From that survey it was clear that 364 out of the 1,000 would go for a system of contracting out; 312 would have preferred a volunteering system; but only 108 were totally against it. Perhaps the small figure of the total against it is accounted for by the fact that many of us know that should it be our family involved, our son or daughter whose life was to be saved, we would certainly accept someone else's kidney or someone else's blood. Therefore, I think that public opinion has moved on since 1969. There is a good deal of evidence in that direction. I ask hon. Members to consider what can be done.
Finally, it may be asked "Is it an abuse to introduce a Ten Minutes Rule Bill on 1st May when one knows very well that the Session of Parliament will probably come to an end in July or October? Here I say only that Lord Platt, one of the most distinguished surgeons in this country, will be moving in the other place a Bill in similar terms. We do not expect the Government to wave some magic wand to give time at this point in the Session of Parliament for such a Bill, but the hope is that they will study the proposals, which are very well known to the Department, and study Lord Platt's Bill, and perhaps in November either introduce Government legislation or give time for Private Member's legislation to come to grips with a subject which is not of world-wide or universal significance but nevertheless affects many families in our country very deeply.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. E. S. Bishop, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Dr. John Cunningham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Terry Walker, Mr. Brian Walden.

TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS

Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to allow hospitals to take the organs, such as kidneys, of any patient, once clinical death has been established, other than those of a deceased person who has contracted out during his lifetime by registering, on a central computer, his desire not to donate organs: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that a considerable number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. We have already taken up a good deal of the time of the business of the day—three-quarters of an hour. I hope that speeches will be reasonably short.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Because of your request, Mr. Speaker, and also because—as survivors, such as myself, of many education debates in this House know—our discussions on such a wide-ranging subject as education can, if we are not careful, become discursive, I shall attempt to be short—I understand that the Secretary of State for Education intends also to be brief, so that we shall not take up too much time of the House—and will concentrate my remarks on Circular 4/74. That document was recently issued by the Department of Education and Science and is headed "The Organisation of Secondary Education".
I begin by saying what this debate is not—at least as launched by the Conservative side of the House. This debate is not one of hostility or criticism in regard to the comprehensive system of education as such. I shall have certain things to say about that system, but I believe—I have long been on record as taking this view—that where a scheme is properly prepared and where, as it often does, it meets with widespread approval from administrators, teachers and parents alike there is much that is attractive in the comprehensive system of education. I believe—and this is not sufficiently said—that it can allow the able child access to a wider range of course and gives the late developer the opportunity to move from one type of course to


another, If I had to identify the principal, though unintended, failure of the 1944 Education Act it would be that the rigidity of the system—this was not what its authors intended—permitted insufficient movement between one system and another. The comprehensive system permits such movement. There is an argument for showing that the less able child is given the opportunity to take advantage of the pull of the more able child, although in some cases I am a little anxious about the effects of the size on the less able child.
We know as a fact that under Conservative Governments and with Conservative local education authorities, in various parts of the country there are well-planned, effective and good comprehensive schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when Secretary of State for Education and Science approved by far the greater number of schemes that came before her. She rejected only 9 per cent. of the schemes that came before her.—although one might not take this view if one reads many of the organs of opinion—and always because she rightly applied a highly critical faculty to each scheme.
I should like to make quite clear in opening that this is not a debate that is intended to be critical of the system which we generally call comprehensive. But it is one thing to be receptive to schemes that come forward from local education authorities and to welcome innovations, particularly where they are the product of careful local consultation, not least with the parent, but it is quite another matter to seek to impose by circular throughout the country a universal system of comprehensive schools and, in the process, to destroy—for this must be the intention—schools of every other type. That is the point of difference between Government and Opposition. I shall develop this point in the few minutes that I shall seek to detain the House.
I should like to give two examples of occasions where in the past we—and I refer to a corporate "we", that is to say, all of us who are interested in education—have got it wrong in this interesting experiment. First, I believe that when dealing with young people

and with an evolving subject like education hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people throughout the educational world, should be prepared to show, and to retain, a certain humility. When I hear educationists of any kind, particularly party political educationists, say that they know it all, I begin to wince—and, refreshingly, the Secretary of State's own circular contains a certain admission of humility. When referring in his circular to local authorities—and no doubt he includes himself in his comment he speaks of the growing experience of the comprehensive schools. The right hon. Gentleman does not claim to know it all, and I think that he is right to take that view.
Let me illustrate two mistakes which we have made in the past. We made a mistake—I have said this before, and I say it again—when we took the view that a comprehensive school had to be large in size. Many people made this mistake, although at least I can claim not to have made it personally. A few years ago a statement such as that contained in Circular 4/74, namely
It is not essential for a comprehensive school to be of very great size ",
would have been a pretty controversial statement to make in debates in this House. We all know that when the Secretary of State issued the circular—and he knows as well as we do that we have access to draft circulars—he would have preferred to see something a little stronger in terms of size. I have never been clear why my good friends in the National Union of Teachers feel so defensive on the question of size.
The fact is that we have been proved wrong. Local authorities—I have London particularly in mind—which firmly believed that a comprehensive school had to be great in size no longer set out to build very large comprehensive schools. In general—and I shall not identify any school, for it would be unreasonable to do so in public—such large schools are susceptible to real social pressures which are causing great anxiety to people of all political persuasions and of none.
This tendency towards dogmatism is not confined to one side of the House. For example, there is a reference in paragraph 4 of the circular to schools with an age range of 11 to 16 which in a few


cases have had their sixth form work combined with further education establishments. We can all think of some interesting examples.
I can well remember my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education being strongly pressed to take the view that this was the new way forward. There was a fascinating experiment in Exeter—and I take that as an example without comment one way or the other—where the sixth form have been working in a college of further education. The fact is that until several school generations have gone through we do not know what will be the effect on the school from which the sixth form work is taken. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, when Secretary of State, firmly said that she would authorise up to a certain number but no more of such experiments until we had all had the opportunity of weighing up and testing the proposition before we started to impose it widely on a large number of people.
Let me take a second example. The Secretary of State includes in his possible methods of organisation of comprehensive schools an all-through system with an age range of 11 to 18. I do not think many local education authorities are keen on that type of organisation at present. I accept that a number adopt such a system, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at proposals that are coming before him now he will see that there are a considerable number of people right across the political spectrum who have considerable doubts about the efficacy of an all-through 11 to 18 comprehensive school as opposed to some of those set out lower down in the circular. Therefore, in seeking to impose by circular and to destroy all other types of schools in the process the Secretary of State could be wrong. If he is wrong he will find that we cannot re-create the system which he has then destroyed.
Next, I meet head on the assumption underlying the circular that to be successful a comprehensive system must be a monopoly. Doubtless we shall argue this at length, and I trust that there will be contributions on it from back-bench Members on both sides of the House. But in a district which consists of a large catchment area and where there are good communications, I believe that it is educationally sound for the co-existence of

two systems. That statement is not a defence of every grammar school, in every circumstance, of whatever standard it may be. But it is a rejection of the assertion, in the circumstances that I have set out, that it is necessary for there to be one system only for the success of the comprehensive principle. I draw attention to the way in which, in a number of areas that I have in mind, sixth-form work is being shared increasingly and the grammar school element is playing a very vital part in that sixth-form work.
Now I ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. He has more than once since taking office expressed his concern for the less able child. I share that concern. I think that probably for both of us—certainly for me—it is because we are both the product of the less able child. I should dearly like to have been a really fine academic brain. No doubt the Secretary of State would have, too. But the fact is that we are both pretty ordinary blokes. I was a late developer. Some of my hon. Friends think that the process has not yet gone very far. So I, too, have this inbuilt feeling towards the less able child, although I should love to have had a very fine academic mind.
Granted the concern of the Secretary of State, which I share, and granted his concern that we should not waste good, useful brains which possibly under the other system sometimes were not fully stretched and used, will not he agree with me that it is still vitally necessary that our education system should really stretch our brainy children?

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Of course.

Mr. van Straubenzee: We need this. The hon. Gentleman will forgive my taking him up on this. I can recall fairly recently going round a school of the type that we are discussing and being shown everything that was excellent by way of ability of the hand. It was only when I pointed out that I had seen no book, no good physics, no geographers or historians, and that only someone as square and as old as I was would expect to see classicists that I was told that they did not think that I would be interested. I said that I was vitally interested in this aspect of education as well. One of the faults of the comprehensive system is that too often it appears to concentrate on the less able


child when the essence of the scheme is that it should stretch the able child.
What research is there on the academic achievement of the comprehensive system? What are we able to deduce at this stage of our knowledge of the academic achievement of the able child in the comprehensive system? I believe that this would be a very helpful contribution to our discussions, especially when the Secretary of State is seeking to impose this system on all, regardless.
I come to my next question. What does the Secretary of State mean in paragraph 8 of the circular by "expediting the process" for examining, and so on, Section 13 proposals? Parliament has given the right hon. Gentleman a duty. I think of my former colleagues in the Department of Education and I think of the massive reading which no doubt the Under-Secretary of State is undertaking at present. I have no doubt that the same goes for Wales. But there is a statutory duty upon the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. People have rights. What does the Secretary of State mean in paragraph 8? What is the process of "expediting" that he has in mind?
Then I come to what is perhaps the most central question. There are some very ominous sounds in this circular about the voluntary-aided schools. It is said:
In the case of voluntary-aided schools the governors cannot expect to continue to receive the substantial financial aid which their schools enjoy through being maintained by the local education authority, if they are not prepared to co-operate with that authority in settling the general educational character of the school and its place in a local comprehensive system.
I ask the Secretary of State a direct question. If he is not in a position to give me the direct answer, I trust that he will arrange for his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to do so. Precisely upon what power is the right hon. Gentleman relying for that assertion? What is his authority in the Education Act, as amended, for his assertion in paragraph 11 of the circular? Clearly, it does not refer to capital. The capital programme is in his hands. What is the power upon which he relies in relation to the recurrent expenditure of a voluntary aided school that puts him in a position to threaten, as he does in the circular, that if it does not conform he will turn off the financial tap?
In the view of a great many people there is here an important point of principle. The voluntary aided schools, whatever one's view of them, were a vital part of the 1944 settlement because a very large number of people considered that the religious ethos of those schools went far wider than the mere teaching of religion. It was part of the settlement of 1944, which is widely regarded as being one of the most successful achievements of this House and of a coalition Government. Coming recently from a part of the United Kingdom where this was a far more debated matter, I appreciate even more than before how important that settlement was.
It is arguable that the settlement should be changed. But it is unacceptable to seek to change the basis of the settlement by a circular and not by legislation.
I ask the Secretary of State to spell out with care and precision how it will be done. Let us assume that he has a local education authority compliant to his wishes. What precisely will the step be to remove from the erring voluntary aided school its recurrent expenditure? On what power does the right hon. Gentleman rely? What power has he to force a local education authority which does not wish to do so to proceed to act in that way in relation to voluntary aided schools in its own area?
Next, what precisely does the right hon. Gentleman intend shall be included in his statement in paragraph 13 that he does not propose to include in future building programmes any project which is not necessary to enable the school to become comprehensive? Does that ban in his mind include minor works?
Let me illustrate what I mean. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, without additional money, there are substantial numbers of grammar schools and secondary modern schools which will continue for as long as we can foresee, because we have not the cash. We know it. We know that the Lord President of the Council told us that the cost of going fully comprehensive was "astronomical", and he was right. Therefore, he knows that for as long as he can reasonably foresee he must continue with them if such a school—a secondary modern or a grammar school—seeks an addition in some of the new areas where so much has been done in teaching.
Let us consider the example of a language laboratory, or, increasingly common—in the language of the computer—the terminal that so many secondary modern schools are using successfully, linked to the local technical college, for instance, and for which an addition may be necessary. Other examples are some of the very much more rarefied manual skills—silversmithing and so on—that are such a feature of much of our educational work today.
Is all that to fall by the wayside? Is the secondary modern or the grammar school to do so? I realise that at the moment minor works stand at £50,000 maximum per school, but that figure will not always necessarily be sufficient. Is the Minister saying that if in the foreseeable future it is not possible for a school—for example, the small secondary modern schools in Manchester—to build on the site in order automatically to go comprehensive, or to work towards being comprehensive, it is to be penalised? We need careful analysis of precisely what he has in mind.
I referred on a previous occasion to this circular as one without teeth. The Secretary of State did me the credit and kindness of having apparently read my speech, because he referred to it. I said that it had no teeth first because it has no cash. The right hon. Gentleman is a Secretary of State without cash. Let him consider what one could do on May Day with the £10 million being given back to the trade unions, which were not expecting to receive it, and which, with a little legal expertise, could easily have avoided paying tax on their provident funds. We could have improved or replaced 80 primary schools with that cash, and I can see the previous Secretary of State being firmly in the demanding queue when there is some cash.
Secondly, the power under which the Secretary of State is seeking to operate in connection with voluntary aided schools is suspect. I believe that it is suspect because he does not have the power to do that which he is threatening to do to the voluntary aided schools. I object strongly to the Government threatening when Parliament has not given them the power so to act.
Therefore, my message to local education authorities and to the governors of voluntary aided schools is "Do

not allow yourselves to be bullied; you still have your rights given to you by Parliament, and if no one else will ensure that you still have them, the Opposition will do so by constant and careful watchfulness from this side of the House".
That is the division between the Government and the Opposition. It is the division of the imposition by circular of a comprehensive system which by definition destroys all else. That is why we have raised the subject and why we shall continue to press it with vigour.

4.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): I welcome the Opposition's choice to debate education on this Supply Day, and I give them the assurance that they will always be supported by the Government when they choose to do so. I especially welcome the opportunity to have a debate concentrated on Circular 4/47. However, when the Opposition initiate a debate of this kind they underline their own weakness on this subject. They underline the fact that the Conservative Party, over the past 10 to 20 years, has had no official policy on comprehensive secondary education.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said at the beginning of his speech—when the tone was a little more reasonable than at the end, a little less militant—that he was not advancing criticism or hostility towards the comprehensive principle. However, as soon as a Labour Government begin to do something to implement the comprehensive principle the Conservative Opposition say, "Do not do it". We had almost precisely the same debate in 1965. The only way in which the Conservative Opposition have moved on since 1965 is that then they divided the House on the issue but today they do not intend to do so. Otherwise, the Opposition Front Bench is adopting exactly the same posture.
Throughout the country many Conservatives involved in education have become advocates of comprehensive principles, and many Conservative-led authorities have been going comprehensive. They have done so without any encouragement or leadership from the Conservative Government recently in office, with a neutral posture being struck


by the Conservative Party nationally, in or out of office—neutral in the sense that it said it had nothing against going comprehensive but that it will never encourage any positive steps from the central Government towards going comprehensive.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend say that the Tory Government had definitely discouraged councils from going comprehensive?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend says "discouraged". It depends whom we listen to. The hon. Member for Wokingham struck a very different note from that of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she spoke in the debate on London affairs two days ago. She then made a speech much more hostile to the concept of comprehensive reorganisation.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is nothing neutral in members of the Opposition saying that they will not be a party to destroying schools of proven worth which have stood the test of time, as my grammar school has, for over 500 years.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Lady has lined up clearly against comprehensive secondary organisation, and in that she speaks for some members of the Conservative Party who take that view. But she will find many Conservatives in local education authorities with great experience of education taking a different view. It is a simple political fact that, because the Conservative Party is so divided on this issue, the leadership fudges it, as it has consistently done over the years, and in the debate this afternoon.
In her attack on the circular two days ago, the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley used the following sentence:
Education is about opportunity, and opportunity is the opportunity to be unequal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974 ; Vol. 872, c. 809.]
I wish to discuss that for a moment. Because of that speech and the comments of the hon. Member a moment ago, it is necessary for the Government to reassert their commitment to secondary reorganisation.
The phrase "the opportunity to be unequal", to me, includes the opportunity for boys or girls who are good at one subject but poor at other subjects to be in a school where they can do advanced work in their good subject and work with pupils who proceed more slowly on other subjects, and such boys or girls not to be shut off from that opportunity by an artificial test at 10 or 11 years of age. The opportunities we are talking about are the opportunities for late developers—as the hon. Gentleman said, for the ordinary "blokes" who, very often, have failed tests of that kind at the age of 10 or 11, but by the age of 13 or 14 are able to achieve in education results that were not thought possible at the earlier age.
We should be concerned also with the opportunity of those boys and girls whose talents cross the normal boundaries between grammar school and modern school education. We should be concerned, for example, with the boy who is good at mathematics and good at metal work, the kind of boy who will be the technician or technologist of the next generation. One of the reasons why British industry has been so short of people with these skills, and is still short of them, is that the education system has tended to divide people into those who do academic work and those who do practical work. I want the bright boy or the bright girl, as well as the slower ones to have the opportunity to combine practical subjects with academic subjects when it is appropriate.
To come to another category—this touches directly on the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the need for stretching people of ability—I shall refer to a conversation I had at a comprehensive school in London about eight or nine years ago when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Education and Science.
The head boy of that school was deputed to show me round, without any staff present. Walking across the playground, he told me what a wonderful thing comprehensive secondary education was. I tried to act the part of devil's advocate. I was speaking to a boy who—I put it in inverted commas—had "failed" the 11-plus but by the age of 18 had passed a number of A-levels and had obtained a scholarship to Cambridge. I said to him


"You have obviously worked hard, but in this school have you found it discouraging to be among people who did not want to work, who were anxious to leave school? Did you find it distracting? Would you have rather been in a school where most of the pupils were academically inclined? ". He said "No. I want to go into industry. I hope to be a manager, and I am glad to have had the chance to be brought up among a cross-section of my generation. I am sorry for my friends in grammar school because they have not had as rich an experience in school as I have had in the past few years."
That boy and boys and girls like him have not been discouraged from excellent academic work. When the hon. Member for Wokingham talks about academic achievement, I ask him to look at the growth in O-level and A-level results in recent years. This is a crude test, of course, but if he wants to talk about academic attainment, it is one rough and ready way of recognising the growth in the number of boys and girls staying on at school to do more advanced academic work and achieving satisfactory results.
The results in comprehensive schools have been at least as good as, if not better than, those in grammar schools. It has been happening in those local education areas which have gone completely comprehensive as it has been happening in those areas which have not. It has been happening in Scotland, which is more than 90 per cent. comprehensive, and in Wales, which is more than 80 per cent. comprehensive, at least as well as in England, which is less than 50 per cent. comprehensive.
There is no evidence to bring to the House to suggest that in the comprehensive secondary school there are not academic achievements which stand comparison with any other part of the system.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The Secretary of State has been confining his remarks to selection at 11-plus, but is he not on record as saying that he is not in favour of selection at any age, either 16-plus or more? Will he explain—this is a vital point—what implications that has for our university and college system? Does he intend to

change the system of entry to non-selective entry into higher education?

Mr. Prentice: No, I do not. What I was saying at that time was that I believe that to abolish selection at 11-plus is just the first step. We should take further steps, as many parts of the country have already done, to abolish any form of selection, at 12-plus or 13-plus. As the hon. Member knows from his experience, some systems have moved a step along the comprehensive road by introducing some kind of selection, semi-selection, or guided parental choice at the age of 13 and so on.
I should like to see the sixth form, as it is in so many places already, a community into which boys and girls can go to take a variety of courses—not necessarily A-level courses—for which they have to compete for a place by taking a certain number of O-levels. That is what I meant, and I think that that view would be shared by the majority of people who have taken a close interest in this subject.
The circular was issued after a period of consultation with the local education authorities, the teachers' organisations and the churches. It should be recognised by the Opposition that the policy presented in the circular represents the broad stream of opinion among all groups concerned with education. I do not mean that everybody we consulted agreed with every detail—of course not—but the broad agreement with the policy was clear. In issuing the circular, we took account of their criticism and suggestions, and altered several points to meet criticism which seemed to us valid. It is a joint circular from the DES and the Welsh Office, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will speak later for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a circular at the same time.
I concede the point, as I said in reply to an earlier intervention, that England has a long way to catch up with both Wales and Scotland in the extent to which those countries have already reorganised on comprehensive lines.
To deal with some specific points, I take, first, the size of the schools. In the circular, we say that we cannot be dogmatic about the right size for a secondary school. I thought that the hon.


Member for Wokingham was not being fair to large schools. I believe that there are many large comprehensive schools which have attained a considerable degree of success. Size presents extra problems—problems of management and problems of keeping contact with pupils. There is a need for a devolution of authority so that there is some senior master or mistress whose relationship with the individual pupil can be parallel to that of the head teacher in a smaller school.
Many schools have managed to cope with those problems. Some of the schools most admired on the Conservative benches are very large schools. Winchester and Eton and Manchester Grammar School are very large schools. Hon. Members should not suggest that a large school is necessarily bad because it is large. We are saying that in order to have an all-through comprehensive school it need not be as large as it was assumed it had to be when these matters were discussed some years ago. Because of the larger proportion of pupils staying on to the sixth form, a school of smaller size than previously can maintain a viable sixth form. There is a greater element of choice here than once appeared to be the case.
As for the main types of the organisation, what was identified in the circular is that three patterns have emerged as those which are considered most successful and which are chosen by the largest number of authorities. They are the all-through 11 to 18 pattern, the 11 to 16 school, with a separate sixth-form college, or a pattern which includes a middle school, from the age of 8 to 12 or 9 to 13, with an upper school for senior pupils. We are not specifying which of these should be preferred. There are also other alternatives, and we are prepared to look at all of them.
It seemed to us that this is the right relationship between national and local government in this matter. We have reiterated that education is a partnership between the two. It seems to us correct that national policy should be identified —in the way in which we have identified it in the circular—with the determination to move as quickly as possible away from selection and towards a fully comprehensive system. But the pattern of

doing it and the types of schools in which it is done are properly a matter for choice by the local education authority in thorough consultation with the teachers' organisations and with parents and other groups in the local community.
The hon. Member for Wokingham said there was a humility in approaching these matters. I will compete with him in humility any time. But I will not have so much humility that we never have a national policy of any kind. The Government have defined in the circular what they believe to be the right national policy—and progress must be made by one or other method towards a comprehensive system.
No Government of this country hither-to, either Labour or Conservative, have been able to allocate special resources for secondary reorganisation. It would be much better if we could do so, but we have not done so. But despite the fact that it has not been done, local education authorities throughout the country have made considerable progress and have used their existing building programmes, adapting their schools in the process of change so as to go comprehensive as quickly as possible. This is one reason why there is an uneven progress, but, nevertheless, progress has been made, and I believe that progress can be made in the future without the allocation of special resources. If special resources were available, no one would be happier than I, but I do not see them being available in the near future.
Turning to future building programmes, the hon. Member asked whether the paragraph in the circular about not permitting building programmes for selective schools covered minor works. That is not so. Minor works are in the control of the local education authorities. The Government would not agree to building projects to build new schools that would be selective, or building projects for an existing selective school that would perpetuate it being selective. It would agree only to building projects in existing schools that were consistent with going towards a comprehensive pattern. This is not a new power, for it has been used before. It is a valid power and is certainly within our authority. Our policy would not be meaningful unless we were prepared to use the building programme in that way.
May I say a word about the problem of voluntary schools, beginning by agreeing with the hon. Member when he said that he thought that the 1944 settlement was a good settlement and one that should be preserved. I completely agree with that. One basic reason why this country has been free from religious strife as it affects education is that we have had that settlement and that, in so far as the details of it have been amended over the years, those details have generally been amended by agreement between the political parties, and this has not been a matter of controversy.
What am I saying in the circular about the voluntary sector? First, I pay tribute to the extent of progress towards comprehensive reorganisation within the voluntary sector. I also acknowledge that in many cases the governors of voluntary schools have wanted to go comprehensive and have been prevented from doing so by the hostile policy of certain local education authorities. I am therefore speaking on the side of the voluntary sector against some local education authorities in this matter. But if the boot is on the other foot, if there is a situation in which a local education authority has a programme for going comprehensive and if the voluntary schools in that area want to stand out against it, two points emerge. If it is a controlled school in which the local authority has the majority on the governing body, we are simply pointing out what is perhaps a fairly obvious point—that the council members sitting on that governing body can reasonably be expected to represent the views of the local education authority and to see that a comprehensive pattern is accepted by that particular school.
But if it is an aided school in which the local government representatives are not in the majority, we are saying that the LEA cannot be expected to maintain that school indefinitely if it is trying to stand out against a policy approved by the elected representatives of the people of that area. Those elected representatives cannot be expected to impose upon the people of that area rates which will be used to oppose the policy which has been agreed.
As to the procedures, it would be up to a local education authority in that situation, under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, to propose to cease to maintain that

school. That is the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member. I would envisage this happening occasionally in situations particularly where a declining population in the area made it possible for the local education authority to think in terms of providing alternative school places for the pupils in such a school if it sought to close the school. I hope that this will not happen often, but I think it is right to draw attention to the possibility that it would happen. I believe that the fact that I have done it in this circular may be of some help to some LEAs which feel that their plans have been obstructed by the voluntary sector.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is the Secretary of State saying that he would regard it as an essential requisite of his agreement—and his agreement is necessary, is it not, to a Section 13 procedure?—that the local authority should be able to show that it has alternative places of educating the children from the voluntary school that it is proposed to close?

Mr. Prentice: It is extremely unlikely in any case that any responsible local education authority would propose to close a school without making alternative plans for the pupils concerned. Indeed, authorities have a statutory duty in these matters. Therefore, I think that the question would be answered before it ever reached my desk. But certainly I would regard it as essential that there were alternative places available for the children. That has to be so.
May I comment on the powers that we are operating in the circular? The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting at one time—and a good deal of comment from Conservative sources seemed to suggest—that somehow or other we are acting improperly and in excess of the authority that we have under the statutes. That is not so. The circular was prepared with expert legal advice. Everything we propose to do in this connection is within the framework of the existing law. I have also made clear, and I underline it again, that we keep open the option of asking Parliament for further powers if and when they are necessary. Whether they will be necessary remains to be seen.
This debate takes place against the background in which the pattern of local government in this country has just been


changed. The majority of local education authorities in England and Wales have just taken over their functions. Nearly all of them now cover areas which have begun the process of comprehensive reorganisation to a greater or lesser extent. There is a tremendous variation, and I am worried about those authorities which have shown no signs in the recent past of making further progress. But at least the process has begun.
In reply to those who urge me to legislate—and many have done so—I ask them to wait a little while to see how things work out. This is a firm statement of national policy. Therefore, the Government keep open the option of coming to Parliament to ask for further legislative powers if necessary.
Meanwhile, every local education authority received the circular about two weeks ago. It will be followed in the next few days by a letter from the Department asking them to let us have their plans for progress as soon as possible, certainly not later than the end of this year.
Some local authorities whose plans were rejected by the previous administration are resubmitting those proposals or are actively considering new proposals which they will put before us. When we came to office a number of plans had been in the pipeline. I am bound to say that some of them had been in the pipeline for a very long time, and in some cases there were quite extraordinary delays in deciding these matters by the last administration.
Since the Government have been in office, in the past two months, we have approved plans for 18 local education authorities, which will lead to the reorganisation on comprehensive lines of 48 schools in different parts of the country. In two cases we have rejected plans from Westmorland and Buckinghamshire, where the local proposals would have perpetuated selection. In one case we have rejected comprehensive plans we thought were unsound. I mention that because we keep that option open, too. We do not automatically approve every plan. We judge each plan on its merits, considering carefully the objections. We get the observations of the local education authority on those objections, and in

every case we give the plans the careful consideration that they deserve.
We seek as rapid as possible constructive change towards a fully comprehensive system. The arguments for it are overwhelmingly educational arguments. However, speaking as a social democrat. I believe that they are social arguments, too. I believe that the inequalities in our society and the degree of class consciousness that remains in our society are due in part at least to the pecking order of our education system. This is not to say that the Government should put social engineering ahead of educational arguments. It is to say that the powerful educational arguments are reinforced for those of us on this side of the House by our desire to create a more just and egalitarian society. Those arguments, as well as the educational arguments, should and must be used in favour of our policy.
The background is that in our country at present thousands of pupils in secondary schools have benefited from progress towards secondary reorganisation in recent years. What worries me, and should worry everybody in this House, is that thousands of other boys and girls of the same age and of similar abilities are still denied those opportunities. The House should think of those thousands of boys and girls when we debate these matters.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This is my first Parliament, and I hope that it will not be my last. I have no reason to think that it will be—now ; but, if it is, I should like to know that I had at least spoken in a debate in this House on the subject of education, because the future of Britain depends in every sense upon the plans that we make now for the education of our children.
As this is my first speech, it is also my first opportunity to talk about my division —Burton. Burton lies, as some hon. Members may know, in the very heart of England. It comprises about 300 square miles of half town, half country, and is a generous mix of all that is best in Britain. At present it is representative, too, of much of the suffering in Britain. There is the stout farmer, taking his underpriced beef, milk and pigs to Uttoxeter market. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have suffered


from or praised the stout jockey who has cleared, or fallen at, the sticks at Uttoxeter racecourse. There is the stout country ratepayer, who is now paying inflated town rates for country services, and there is the stout—ah! yes, the stout—and the ale of Burton town.
As the poet A. E. Housman wrote:
Say, for what were hop-yards meant:
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not.
And faith, 'tis pleasant till 'tis past:
The mischief is that 'twill not last.
But the Burton constituency is famous not only for its beer, markets, racecourse, Tutbury glass, Branston pickle—though I think that that has gone somewhere else—Marmite, Bovril, Pirelli tyres, its JCB factory but also for its three grammar schools—Burton Grammar School for Boys, Burton High School for girls and the Dovecliffe Grammar School.
Hon. Members will have already heard of the record of academic success and achievement of these three schools from my revered predecessor, John Jennings. I doubt whether, in recent years, the House has had a more tenacious fighter for the cause of grammar schools. I doubt whether it has had a more staunch or valiant fighter for the causes that he believes to be right. It certainly brought him no wealth, nor patronage here—though he did credit to the position of Chairman of Committees, about which I have heard so much praise—but it brought him honour and great respect in Burton, which he served so selflessly for nearly 20 years before his retirement. It is largely out of respect for all that he did for education in Burton, for his ceaseless fight to maintain not only the grammar schools but the independent schools and the village schools, that I have thought it proper to make my maiden speech on this subject.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a little hesitant about it. Since entering the House all I have heard has been talk of the disclosing of interests. I do not know whether it is of interest to hon. Members that I am the product of a grammar school and, therefore, I suppose, yet another "ordinary bloke", although

recently I have also been the governor of a comprehensive school.
In case hon. Members opposite fear that in speaking about grammar schools as I take my first poor fledgling steps in oratory in the House I shall commit the cardinal sin of party controversy and launch into an attack upon a Labour Government whose declared aim is to abolish the grammar schools and substitute a completely comprehensive system of education throughout the country, I shall try to allay that fear. I seek to make no party points. I seek only to make an educational point, that it is in neither the long-term nor the short-term interests of this country to destroy grammar schools, or indeed, any other schools, that are presently providing high quality education. We cannot afford the money necessary to create new schemes of quality and we cannot afford the academic disruption that would be caused.
If I should fall into the error of any controversy, let me assure Labour Members that my criticisms would be equally strongly levelled against those of my hon. Friends who would seek to hurry or provoke the demise of quality grammar schools in the name of the sacred but quite barren cow of egalitarian progress.
I wish to make three short points in favour of the retention of the grammar school system. I am conscious that some other points have been raised by the Secretary of State, and I can leave those to my hon. Friends to deal with.
The first point is about quality. Surely educational progress without at the same time educational quality is a contradiction in terms. If standards are to fall, what on earth is the point of progress? We know that we all want wider opportunities for more children. We know that we all want wider curricula, but never at the cost of quality. Do we get quality from comprehensive schools? Of course we do, from time to time, but we get it more often from grammar schools. We get it from those grammar schools that remain, otherwise they would not remain. It is because quality comes from something which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has frequently spoken about—that is, evolutionary growth. It is the result of a closer relationship that appears in those schools between pupil and master. It is a result of


the traditions of the schools. It comes from the roots. Quality is so much more often the product of evolutionary change. It is far less often a product of revolutionary change.
I could, I am sure, prove the point by comparing the examination results of the grammar schools in my division, the discipline of the grammar schools, the truancy level at the grammar schools, and the social behaviour of the grammar school children in my division, with some of the same aspects of the comprehensive schools. But that might bore the House, so I will not risk it. That is my first point—quality.
My second is about facilities. In a perfect society, with unlimited money, perfect facilities for study could be produced, but they seldom are in our society as it exists at present. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) rejected the local authorities' proposals to abolish Burton's grammar schools she observed that three out of four of the proposed new comprehensive schools would have to function on split sites. One of the schools would have to function on three split sites. Even the local authority's reply conceded that two out of five would have to operate on split sites. How on earth is that conducive to learning?
In one of the Burton comprehensive schools, the daughter of a constituent of mine had to study metalwork, while her brother in another form in the comprehensive school had to study needlework. That arises from the exigencies of the present economic situation. With the best will in the world, it is no use laying out plans for comprehensive education if a boy of academic ability is forced to study needlework.
Also, this is a time when we are rightly complaining about over-full classes and of inadequate opportunities for schooling. My three Burton grammar schools have reduced their intake, leaving staff underemployed and their facilities under-used. At this time, what on earth is the use of that?
So my second point is that the grammar school system at present offers facilities which the comprehensive system as envisaged does not—in the short term, at any rate.
My third point concerns choice. We are concerned always—and rightly concerned—about the will of the people. I have heard about practically nothing else since I came into this House. In Burton town, with an electorate of 36,500 people, 14,000 signed petitions to retain the grammar schools, and those 14,000 signatures were collected in August and September when probably nearly half of the population were away on holiday. Over 80 per cent. of those who were asked whether they were interested in signing a petition to keep the grammar school said "Yes". They chose to retain, not only the grammar schools, but the choice of single-sex education which was to be taken from them by comprehensive schools. When it is within the law to do so, is not the production of such a petition and the giving effect to it the best example of democracy at work? Should not the will of the people be respected more? Does not such a test of the will of the people merit the support of all hon. Members?
I know the argument that says, "Where is the choice for those who are not privileged to send their children to a grammar school?" But it is a feeble argument. Choice for the under-privileged is not bought by destroying the choice of the privileged, any more than the fatuous argument for redistributing the wealth of the rich, that it is likely to increase the wealth of the mass of the people. I do not want anybody to make a class point here. The Secretary of State spoke about the inequalities of the system which, he said, was one of the reasons he was advancing comprehensive education. In Burton town it is more often the children of the working class families who are at present enjoying the privilege of grammar school education.
The Secretary of State gave an example—remember, I am speaking about choice—of the comprehensive school boy who said that he felt sorry for the grammar school boy, because the grammar school boy did not get the opportunities that he got. That is good. Nobody on this side of the House, surely, says that that is a bad thing. What we are asking for is the choice of a parent to choose to send a child to a comprehensive or technical school, or to a grammar school, if one exists and is functioning well in the area. It is that choice


which is being removed by the comprehensive proposals of the Government.
Those are my three points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the poet that I quoted earlier said:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not.
And faith, 'tis pleasant till 'tis past:
The mischief is that 'twill not last.
Just as the drinker—I do not suppose that anybody in the House knows what I mean—knows that the alcoholic haze will not last, so it is my fervent hope that the educational haze will not last and that the time will come soon when the only question that politicians will ask in deciding whether to destroy a school that is good in order to build another one consistent with some ideological scheme for the long-term future is, "Which school will provide a better education for our children?"

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: It is my agreeable duty to compliment the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on his thoughtful and, indeed, literate maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure since the hon. Member is a constituent of mine and represents the constituency just across the River Trent from my own. I take this opportunity of undertaking that if he has any problems with this Government and comes and sees me, I shall do my very best on his behalf. I am sure that the House will listen with interest to his future contributions on this subject.
I have often wondered why a maiden speech is regarded as such a daunting venture, when even the greenest Member of this House, before entering it, must have made dozens, perhaps hundreds of speeches. Now that I rise to undergo this initiation ceremony myself, I understand what the problem is. There is not here the friendly table of the political platform behind which one can shelter. There is not the lectern of the lecture room on which one can lean. One is subjected to full frontal exposure to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and every twitch and mannerism is closely observed. I notice that some hon. Members take the precaution of adopting a certain protective stance towards the other side of the House so as to expose less of their frame to the Opposition.
We maiden speakers have a stronger protection. We have the indulgence of this House if we undertake to be uncontroversial. Yet, on scanning the pages of HANSARD, I find that neither of my two predecessors—the two Members who have represented Belper since the last war—observed this convention. If I, too, seem to be following the Belper tradition I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that I am presuming on their good nature. Though they may disagree with some of the things I shall say, I assure them that my arguments are directed mainly to my right hon. Friends and are, I regret, unlikely to have relevance in the present Parliament.
For the moment let me abide by that other very civilised House of Commons tradition—that of complimenting one's predecessors—a tradition which I suppose grew out of the realisation that it is sweet indeed to both praise and bury one's opponent at the same time. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith was an independent-minded Member who was not afraid to flout his party line, be it on miners' pay or foreign affairs. In fact, in one exchange which we had in the columns of the local newspaper on the subject of the then Conservative Foreign Secretary's trip to China, it became apparent that my views were closer than Geoffrey Stewart-Smith's to the then Conservative Foreign Secretary's views. In case the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) derives comfort from this revelation when he reads my speech in HANSARD, let me warn him that the only conclusion that readers of that newspaper could have drawn from the controversy was that the aforesaid right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was, in fact, a Left-wing intellectual.
Geoffrey Stewart-Smith has a considerable knowledge of foreign affairs and I hope that he will again have a chance to display it in this House, but based in some safe Conservative seat and not in Belper. Belper—as my predecessor's predecessor stated in 1970—was "on loan" and, having proved Lord George-Brown right, may I extend the normal tradition and pay a tribute to him also because in Belper his name and his works are still fondly remembered.
Only a month ago I was present at the formal opening of the Belper High School, and a Conservative councillor


who played a major part in founding the school paid tribute to Lord George-Brown's rôle. He said that he had been informed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, then the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that George had come into his room, pounded his desk demanding cash for the Belper High School at a time when cash was virtually unavailable, and my right hon. Friend finally gave in for fear that his desk would be shattered.
All of this brings me, in the carefully contrived manner beloved of maiden speakers, to the subject of this debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will pay a visit to my constituency to see the Belper High School which marks, incidentally, the ending of the 11-plus in that part of Derbyshire, because it is not only impressive academically, but also is designed as an integral part of the life of the town of Belper. It has a sports centre that will serve swimmers and games players of all ages.
On that visit I would take him also to some of the other fine schools in the constituency, including the Pingle school in Swadlincote, which, I believe, is the first in the country to have a special unit for mentally retarded children as an integral part of the school. Next September when a sixth-form unit is also added to that school—the first sixth-form unit in the deep south of Derbyshire—the Pingle school will then cater for the fullest possible range of talent amongst children.
On that visit I should also want to show my right hon. Friend the village school at Walton which I visited last weekend. For years a new school has been promised to that village, but it has never been built. For economic reasons the building has been postponed yet again. It is now virtually impossible to get into the classrooms once the children have been crowded in.
In my constituency there is in addition one of the great public schools of this country, which I visited last weekend as well. It is a school similar to an establishment that I attended. Since becoming a Member of this House I have been struck by how much the atmosphere sometimes resembles that of a public school. I was astonished, when walking

in procession to the other place, to be greeted with shouts of. "Take your hands out of your pockets." There is, too, the quaint emphasis on marks of status and rank. Let us take the Front Bench. In big debates there is not room for all of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers to sit upon it. A few modestly retire comfortably to the second bench. But far more are to be seen lurking behind, squatting beside, indeed leaning upon your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, presumably in order to avoid any suspicion that they belong to any bench other than the Front Bench.
I have a modest suggestion to make, the origins of which Mr. Speaker himself would recognise, namely, that it should be reckoned a privilege for Front Bench Members, on entering the Chamber, to be allowed to turn up the collars of their jackets. Thus attired they could sit comfortably anywhere in the Chamber without losing caste in the sight of their fellow Members. However, as the House will realise, that is not the main issue I wish to raise. Nor do I wish to go into all the arguments against the public schools.
As I said earlier, my purpose is not to debate with hon. Members opposite but to make comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who, I am sure, is persuaded of the arguments against the public school system. I remind my right hon. Friend, however, of the judgment of the Newsom Commission set up under the previous Labour Government to examine the public school system. It said:
The public schools are not divisive simply because they are exclusive. An exclusive institution becomes divisive when it arbitrarily confers upon its members advantages and powers over the rest of society.
It was the statistics of the Newsom Commission that demonstrated that the public schools do confer such advantages upon their pupils. If that is so, and if my right hon. Friend accepts the findings of the Newsom Commission, why is it that successive Labour Governments have proved so dilatory about doing anything to implement our stated desire—and I quote?
…to abolish fee-paying schools and to bring all children of compulsory school age into the national education system"?


I applaud my right hon. Friend's determination, re-stated this afternoon, to introduce comprehensive schools throughout the country. But I hope for signs of action in respect of the private sector. In his speech during the Budget debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) warned that the Budget heralded the
twilight of the middle class."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April 1974, Vol. 871, c. 1000.]
What was interesting about that Spenglerian phrase was its Marxist underpinning—if the economic basis of the middle class is destroyed, the middle class will cease to exist. Whatever the economic impact of the Budget, I believe this premise to be false but, unfortunately, I am not sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends are sure that it is false. The fact is that class divisions in this country are perpetuated not just by income differentials, though of course those are great and ought to be reduced, but by social differentials which derive from the two-nation idea which the public school system has fostered and which now permeates British society.
Recently in Hamburg I asked a group of leading German businessmen what reasons they gave for Britain's failure to develop her economy. Their immediate answer, agreed by all members of the group, had nothing to do with those hardy perennials, trade union militancy and the inefficiencies of British salesmen abroad. The immediate answer was that Britain is too widely split by the class harrier, that the class differences in Britain could be spotted immediately one got off the plane at Heathrow. Those Germans pointed out that the exigencies of defeat in two world wars had resulted in the virtual extinction of the old social class differences in Germany and that had made it easier for people to unite and rebuild the shattered German economy. Such, unfortunately, is not the case in Britain.
Today, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House call for national unity to enable Britain to tackle its economic problems—a call that is echoed throughout the country. But we shall never get national unity while we retain an educational system that perpetuates archaic social divisions. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that the integration of public schools into

the private sector will be very costly and that it will starve other educational sectors of funds. I am as concerned as the next hon. Member to have money for education in my constituency so that that long-postponed village school in Walton can finally be built. But the problem of the public schools system is not fundamentally an educational one; it is a social problem and the cost of the integration process should not be borne out of educational funds.
The integration of the private sector into the State system should be seen as an essential part of our social strategy for a more equal nation and should, therefore, receive a priority that no Labour Government have yet accorded it. I am convinced that however successful my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in redistributing wealth, the truly dangerous divisions within our society today will remain so long as the social barrier to national unity, fostered by the public school system, remains.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: It gives me enormous pleasure to congratulate two maiden speakers who, I understand, are neighbours. Their constituencies march side by side. I had the opportunity of looking in The Times book a moment ago and read that the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) was educated at Fettes, Oxford and Harvard, while my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was educated, he tells us, at a grammar school. To be political for a moment, that is the best argument for abolishing public schools I have heard in a long time.
But I am told by my hon. Friend that they had a joint deputation about a bridge and our two colleagues met in the centre of the bridge, both armed with petitions but, as the bridge was unsafe and started to sway, they had to move off quickly to avoid two by-elections. We are fortunate that those by-elections were avoided and I hope that we shall hear a lot more from both of them as the Session advances.
I shall be brief, because we have a half-day debate on education and many Members wish to speak. First, I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State—he is not in his place at present, but perhaps he will read HANSARD to find


out what the Opposition have to say—that he puts education before social engineering and equality. In his speech on Monday night, he mentioned the remarks by Mr. Ronald Butt in the Sunday Times, and perhaps they struck home.
As he is putting education before equality and social engineering, he will possibly pay attention to the dilemma that I believe faces 11 to 18 all-through comprehensive schools in London and, indeed, in other urban centres. But I can speak with conviction of London, especially South London. It is of this dilemma that I wish to speak.
The dimension of the difficulties facing both discipline and the standard of education in our big comprehensive schools is only now starting to be realised. For some years the Inner London Education Authority has, rightly or wrongly, paid little attention to, or has disregarded, the problem of discipline.
I should like to draw attention to an interesting booklet that I received recently, "Violence in Schools", a survey published by our friends in the National Association of Schoolmasters, a reputable body. The booklet refers to the conclusions drawn from a survey of 1,300 or 1,400 schools throughout the country. In the foreword, the Secretary, Mr. Casey, states:
If the lurid fantasies of imminent blackboard jungles are dispelled, solid facts support the view that violence and indiscipline have already reached intolerable levels in more than a few schools.
If the laudatory remarks made by the Secretary of State about his visit to Newham last week are right, then I can only ask him to visit some of the schools in areas with which I am well acquainted. Indeed, I will mention one school which was referred to on Monday and has been named in the Press. Many of us are aware of the problems at Tulse Hill. Indeed, the headmaster of a neighbouring school recently told me that one of his masters saw a stranger in his class. He upbraided the pupil and asked, "Where do you come from?" The pupil replied, "I come from Tulse Hill, Sir. Oh, do let me stay. The classes are so nice and quiet here." This is a grave difficulty.
I turn now to educational standards. I understand that we shall soon be re-

ceiving the report on literacy. Perhaps we shall then have some firm information on which to base our judgments. However, the parents to whom I have spoken—and this may be an issue in the elections which are to take place tomorrow—are becoming seriously concerned about the standard of education of many pupils in the large 11 to 18 all-through comprehensive schools.
This brings me to the dilemma that I want to spell out. The educational idea behind the large comprehensive school was theoretically sound: that in order to have sufficient sixth-form teaching options—say, 15 to 20 options for the sixth-form—we need a sixth-form of between 100 and 120 more-or-less academic students. To generate a sixth form of that size in London we need a school of least 1,200 students, preferably 1,500 or 2,000, to support the number of teachers required to cover all the options. That is why the country moved to this system of large schools. My friends and I—I am speaking of the Conservatives on the Inner London Education Authority—again and again said: "We may have problems that we do not expect from this type of school. So let us go slowly."
Children in deprived areas of big cities need to he well taught. They need to feel that they belong to a school. Therefore, they need a disciplined structure in their school. But we know what is happening, for instance, to the teachers in London schools. On Monday night a figure of 30 per cent. turnover of teachers was mentioned in Inner London. How can we have a disciplined structure and integration with that kind of turnover of teachers? It is extremely difficult. That is why I believe that within a decade we may be looking back at these vast comprehensive schools with the same distaste as today we look back at the tower blocks that were built with such pride by so many councils 10 or 15 years ago.
I was interested to read in a Press notice issued by the Inner London Education Authority in April that ILEA is now changing its view. Dr. Briault, whom we all know, wrote that a major point to emerge from consultations that are taking place was that the size of comprehensive schools should be reduced.


At last that has been accepted by Left-wing educational opinion, but too late for some generations of school children!
We have a dilemma here. If the size is reduced we shall be left with a sixth form that is too small to give the options that we need. I will illustrate the point by referring to Battersea Grammar School, which is an excellent three-form entry school. For the 90 places that it offers each year. it has about 150 applications. So it is a popular school. ILEA wishes to turn this school into a six-form-entry mixed comprehensive which will have a sixth form of perhaps 100 to 120 students. Of those, only 30 or 40 will be academic. The rest will be re-taking exams—CSE, or whatever it may be. We cannot justify the number of teachers required to give the range of options we need with such a small sixth form.
That is the dilemma that I see with the all-through comprehensive school, and it worries me. It is either so large —I refer specially to urban areas—that we cannot maintain discipline in education or it is so small that we cannot have the range of choice required for the sixth form.
What is the answer? I do not think that on educational grounds one can defend grammar schools. The long-term answer may be the middle school. I understand that Mitcham has just started with a middle school system. It may be that the middle school or six-form college is the answer. I understand that Hove has started on that system. It may be that the "campus system" is the answer. I understand that that has been tried in Norfolk.
I do not know the answer. I do not believe that the Secretary of State knows the answer. Indeed, I do not think that educationists know the answer. If they say that they do, I would remind them that 10 years ago they said that the answer was the all-through, 1,500-pupil comprehensive school. Clearly that now is not the answer. They were wrong then and they may be wrong again. On educational grounds, I ask ILEA to proceed slowly.
I ask the Secretary of State, when the Battersea Grammar school proposal comes to him, to consider it very carefully. It is a good school. It is a grammar school; it has selection, but it is a good school. If it is turned into a six-form-

entry mixed comprehensive, what will happen to the academic level of the sixth form? It might be better to wait five years, 10 years or, if necessary, 15 years to see what happens with middle schools and sixth-form colleges. We do not yet know the answer. I ask the Secretary of State on educational grounds to reflect that perhaps he is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): May I make an appeal to the House. This is a shortened debate. If hon. Members limit themselves to just over five minutes, every hon. Member who wishes to speak will be able to do so. Otherwise I fear that many hon. Members will be unable to catch my eye.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth): Contributions to the debate have concentrated on the circular on the organisation of secondary education and the need to carry through effective plans for comprehensive education at secondary level. As the Secretary of State for Education and Science reminded the House at the beginning of the debate, Wales is already 80 per cent. comprehensive.
One of the outstanding problems in the future development of comprehensive schooling in Wales concerns the way in which the structure should be organised to provide for teaching through the medium of Welsh as well as English. I welcome the reference in the circular to bi-lingual schools. What consultations have taken place with the local education authorities in Wales on the provision of such schools in the various regions throughout Wales?
Although I endorse the circular and the priority to be given to the completion of the reorganisation of secondary schooling, I should like to take advantage of the debate briefly to speak about the tertiary sector as well, partly because it is the sector in which I was involved before I came here, but mainly because there are important strategic decisions which must be taken about the future planning of the sector if we are to ensure a broadly-based system of continuing education.
Our aim must be to extend the comprehensive principle to the whole of our education service. I urge the Secretary of State to say at some stage whether that is a longer-term aim of the Government.
At present we have a multiple structure of tertiary education in a variety of institutions under the direct and indirect control of both local and central government. The sector is dominated in terms of both per capita resource allocation and status by the universities, although in reality they cater for a very small percentage of the potential clients of the pre-school education service.
I urge the Secretary of State to approach the Committee of Vice-Chancellors in the near future to initiate discussions with the universities on their rôle within a comprehensive tertiary structure. I also ask him to stress to the universities the need to extend the work of their extramural departments and to allocate places for students to transfer directly from part-time extra-mural study to full-time continuing education. That would clearly require the co-operation of both the TUC and the CBI in ensuring the expansion of day release opportunities for both vocational and non-vocational education.
The longer-term aim must be the recognition of a right to an educational course in the form of a right to day release for educational purposes, a right which is supported by legislation in some Western European countries, as the Russell Committee on Adult Education observed.
In addition to expanded provision for students without formal entry requirements, the universities must now be requested to re-examine their relationships to other institutions of tertiary education in their areas. For that to happen effectively there must be leadership from the Department of Education and Science.
Certain current developments are holding back adequate discussion between the universities and other institutions in the tertiary sector. I am referring specifically to the developments after the publication of Circular 7/73 on the development of higher education in the non-university sector. The circular followed on the recommendation of the James Committee on Teacher Education and Training. It is important that the relationship between the university sector and the other institutions within the tertiary sector should be reappraised now.
The danger of Circular 7/73 is that it will lead to the creation of a public

sector second-tier type of tertiary institution based on the polytechnics, colleges of education and colleges of further education. This will continue to be a poor relation of the universities in terms of manpower and resources. In effect, we shall be creating the tertiary equivalent of the secondary modern school.
I strongly urge the Secretary of State to withdraw the circular and replace it with a circular for tertiary education on lines similar to those of Circular 4/74 on secondary education. Otherwise all the Government will do will be to perpetuate at tertiary level all the inequalities of opportunity and provision which they have sought to remove at secondary level.
There is a particularly pressing need for Circular 7/73 to be withdrawn as it affects Wales. Professor Webster recognised in the James Report that there is already the higher level of integration within the tertiary sector in Wales than in the regions of England. I hope that we shall have the assurance from the Under-Secretary that teacher education and training in Wales will continue to develop along the lines indicated in the James Report, and that the on-going integration of colleges of education with the university colleges in the various Welsh regions will be allowed to maintain its present momentum. This integration must gradually take in the polytechnics, colleges of further education and other institutions, such as adult education colleges, so that we can produce a genuinely comprehensive tertiary education service.
We already have such a service in embryo in the various regions of Wales. I do not want to see Welsh educational egalitarianism held back by the regressive bias of Circular 7/73. The circular should be withdrawn in England and Wales, but if the Government are not disposed to withdraw it immediately in England, because 130 local education authorities in the various English regions have prepared reorganisation plans for their institutions, I must press the logic of the Welsh situation, as the James Report did.
As far as I am aware, the Welsh Joint Education Committee has not yet prepared or finalised plans for reorganising colleges of education in Wales. Already


the colleges of education and the university have objected to draft schemes.
I hope that we do not look in vain to the Labour Government to allow us in Wales to continue working at creating a broad-based tertiary education system. From the embryo of integration between the colleges of education and the university colleges many of us hope to see developing an integrated comprehensive structure of tertiary education, when the artificial distinctions between further, higher, advanced and adult education will be dissolved and replaced by centres of continuing education open to all members of the community.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I very much welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on issuing the circular underlining the commitment to nonselective secondary education. I am not surprised that Tory Members have found themselves in some difficulty. They have faced both ways on the issue of the future of secondary education. The nonselective development we have seen is one of the success stories of the late 1960s. I can recall, when we began to question the wisdom of selecting children at the age of 11, just how much support was given to us by the Tory Party.
In my city of Manchester, when what was called the great battle to change our system of secondary education was taking place, I can recall the opposition which was stirred up by members of the Tory Party. Today no one is demanding that we should re-introduce the 11-plus. I receive no letters from parents demanding that we should re-open our secondary modern schools. Parents are most concerned about many problems in the education service. There is, however, no demand to go back to the days of selecting children at the age of 11 and putting them into secondary modern or grammar schools.
The Conservative Government showed little enthusiasm for assisting local authorities which wanted to help voluntary schools in their area to prepare reorganisation schemes. I believe there is a genuine desire on the part of voluntary schools to have an education system similar to

that of their own education authority. The parents of children in voluntary primary schools in my city are now asking, "Why have our children still to take the 11-plus?"
Given good will, I do not believe that there will be the difficulties envisaged when we look at some of the schemes which the voluntary schools are prepared to put forward to end the 11-plus examination and to introduce a non-selective system of secondary education.
I have found myself in some difficulty in trying to understand what is meant by talk of the destruction of schools such as we have heard this afternoon. We have destroyed no schools in Manchester. They are all used—in a new form. They have different types of pupils going through their doors. There is great anxiety on the part of many parents lest their children should enter some of the schools which were formerly grammar schools. One of the most highly favoured schools is a purpose-built comprehensive school. It has as many applications from parents as had the former grammar schools. There are heads of schools who, openly defend the advantages of a school on split sites. I hope that in considering the schemes the Minister will take these matters into consideration.
Many misleading comments are being made about two aspects of life in our schools—violence and truancy. They are doing great damage to the education system. There has already been a reference to surveys, if that is the right word, carried out by the National Association of Schoolmasters. Hon. Members have spoken of a survey said to have been undertaken in the city of Manchester dealing with violence in schools. Neither the Chief Education Officer of Manchester nor the Chairman of the Education Committee has seen this document.
I understand that it is nothing more than a document which has not been published. I believe that it comprises subjective impressions. It is clear that its authors do not claim that it has any validity statistically. All that they have said to heads is, "Have you been having trouble?" My education authority has taken the trouble to look into some of the aspects of the so-called violence in our schools.
The education committee's investigations do not tie up with the statements made by the NAS. An idea is being spread abroad about truancy which is totally unsatisfactory. The Department of Education and Science has undertaken an exercise dealing with this. I hope that the Minister will speed the publication of the document revealing the results of this exercise. Most authorities take the view that this is a rather suspect operation statistically, particularly in view of the total lack of guidance from the Department about what should be regarded as justified and unjustified absences.
Many authorities would have preferred such an exercise to be carried out by the education welfare service. I believe that the education welfare officers are the poor relations in our education service. There is inadequate recognition of their vital importance. If we are to improve certain aspects of life in our schools we must strengthen their rôle . This will be possible only when they are treated in accordance with other sectors of the education service as regards pay and are given a proper salary structure. I hope that the Minister will give a good deal of thought to these matters.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: We on the Liberal Bench recognise that seven weeks may not be long enough for sweeping reforms in education. But we do feel that it is long enough to show intent. Labour in opposition, I thought, well represented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), gave all of us who were on these benches during the period of the last Government high hopes of radical policies. We on the Liberal Bench supported the hon. Member, particularly in his violent opposition to the cuts in education expenditure.
I am sorry about the conspiracy of silence which we have had in this Parliament on the subject. I well realise that there is little money available for education. We feel that there is money available for what are, in our opinion, quite pointless things—such as milk subsidies. If we can take 1p off a pint of milk, which helps Mr. Harry Hyams to live more economically, we have no reason for withholding money from the school building programme.
This is money withheld at a price. Teachers are a deeply upset group of people, and they have every right to be. Not only do they face violence—they are steadily apprehensive about this—but the only way they can move on to a position of commercial viability is by doing all that they are asked to do by their headmasters and their seniors in schools. If any young teacher wants to get on, he has got to be dishonest, because if he speaks up and tells them what he really feels he is finished as far as headmaster-ships or promotion are concerned. This is a deplorable state of affairs. A teacher deserves a decent amount of money so that he can speak his mind from a position of honour.
We recognise that there is little money available for student grants, but there has been plenty of time to show intent. There are desperate anomalies in student grants. The worst is that of parental contributions which are not paid because parents do not or cannot contribute or are sufficiently bloody-minded simply not to do so. This is something which would have cost no money but needed a little sensitivity, and students would have felt that the Government were on their side. I hope very much that the Minister of State will mention this matter when he replies.
In the case of school buildings, the Government are aware that for every £1 spent per nursery student. £14 is spent on a student in higher education. In view of this disparity, we deplore the cuts that have even been made in nursery education.
I have in my constituency a village school, in Murrow, in the north of Cambridgeshire. Twelve years ago, this school was found to be uneconomic and was condemned. There was a protest and the school was kept. The school flourished. Some years ago, the local council bought a new plot of land to build a bigger school. It still retains this plot, but the bigger school has not been built. Yet today, talking to the headmaster of the school in Murrow, I was told that one of the Department's inspectors had been to see him and had reprimanded him for allowing his pupils to eat at their desks. There is no dining hall. I should like to know where the hell they can eat if they cannot eat at their desks. The job of the Department of Education and Science has got to be


to support those who suffer from the injustices of the cut-back in expenditure, and not to blame them and make their life more difficult.
The raising of the school leaving age clearly needed much more attention than was given to it. By law the children at school have to stay until the age of 16. We feel that if they want to leave at 16—and I mean if they really want to leave—they should be allowed to do so, without having these in-built dates whereby they can leave only if they were born on a certain day or the term ends by a certain date. Not enough thought has been given to this matter.
All of us, on both sides of the House, would like a little more information about truancy. It is pathetic that no local education authority has ever admitted that it has a had school. It is only everyone else who admits that "those schools over there" are bad. Surely, it is up to the Department to let people admit that they have had schools and to see that they do something about it. That would cost no money. It is the job of the Department to announce the level of truancy. In France there is virtually no truancy because the school attendance record is computerised and runs in concert with the family allowance. If a child is a truant, the parents of that child receive no family allowance—although there is a clawback.[Interruption.] They can get their money back if the computer goes wrong, but there is another clawback; they have to have a doctor's certificate, and they can then claim. This sort of legislation would have done no harm and would have made people involved in education feel that the new Government were on their side.
We have heard a lot about the private sector. We feel that it is important for the Government to get the rest of the school system into order before they start thinking of abolition of the private sector. We on the Liberal Bench—of 50 per cent. of us—are not abolitionists.
The youth and community programme is vitally important. There are at present under 190 places for training youth and community workers. There are annually 270 jobs. While schools are overcrowded, church halls and youth clubs are empty because there are no qualified staff to

take them over. Here again, we have a section which the Department could have seen to. It would have cost virtually nothing. It would have meant a recycling of a few of these places in colleges of education which, as far as I can see, are being run in the hope that the instances of birth will go down in the next few years and save the faces of consecutive Governments.
I have campaigned about and tabled Questions on the subject of illiteracy, and I am very pleased to see that there is to be an investigation into "educational under-achievement". But if that is the Government's description of illiteracy, it is a very conservative way to talk about it—" educational under-achievement"— because illiteracy is failure. Unless we can come to terms with it, and can show open government and say, "We are concerned about educational failure", the credibility of this new Government's Department of Education and Science will be highly suspect.

6.12 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: It is a tragedy that the comprehensive school in this country became, at a certain point in time, a political issue. It does not naturally belong to either the Left or the Right. Russia and Eastern Europe went over to the comprehensive school under the Communist régimes there. Both are leaving the common school, as they call it in translation, to go to highly specialised schools and highly selective schools, some in Czechoslovakia and Hungary selecting children at the age of eight. Similarly, in America, where the economic system, I am told and I see, is different from that of Russia, they tried the common school. In New York, Los Angeles and other cities they are moving back rapidly to a highly selective subject system.
But the comprehensive school has been accepted by one side and has become almost a dogma, a doctrinist or millennialist system. I cannot accept after 2,000 years of education that a new method for the education of children has been discovered which is far different from and better than the previous methods. This millennialist view is particularly dangerous, because people expect too much and the whole thing becomes unstuck, as it has at present.
Thirteen years ago when I came to my first comprehensive headship in London —I have been the head of two not undistinguished comprehensive schools, and a grammar school and a secondary modern school—an almost unique service—I would have supported the Secretary of State for Education and Science, not with compulsion but by verbal encouragement, for the extension of comprehensive education. Six or seven years ago I would have done the same more half-heartedly. But at present I cannot, because much water has flowed under the bridge in the last few years. What I thought the comprehensive school would be, certainly in many areas, is not what it has become. A very distinguished member of the Labour Party, who still holds office, once said that the grammar schools would be destroyed over his dead body and that comprehensive schools were offering a grammar school education to all. I do not say that cheaply, because that is what I thought. Many of the pioneers of the comprehensive movement thought that what was being offered was more academic education and, in addition, grammar school values of academic and intellectual education for children. I do not think that is now the case. From what I have seen of comprehensive schools in various cities and in London—and Manchester has been mentioned in this debate—they are, for a variety of reasons, becoming nonacademic schools.
The Secretary of State said this afternoon that the evidence was that these schools were doing better academically. I do not know where that evidence is and I should like to see it tabled. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to Robin Pedley's book, we know that only 30 per cent. of schools answered the letters he sent out. Furthermore, 30 per cent. of the children concerned came from Wales, and only 6 per cent. of the country's children come from that area. That sort of mathematical method is worth only a grade 6 CSE. If that is the best evidence we can get, then we had better start again.
Between 1970 and 1972 the number of children in comprehensive schools increased by 30 per cent., but the number of Oxbridge scholars from comprehensives fell. Perhaps hon. Members oppo-

site do not worry about Oxbridge scholarships, and if so let them say so. The headmaster of Holland Park comprehensive, Dr. Rushworth, said last year that the standard of a pupil in his school at 14 was behind that which he would have achieved in a grammar school. These are serious matters and they certainly would have alarmed me 13 years ago when I gave my support to a system which obviously has gone wrong somewhere along the line.
In his book, "All Our Futures", J. W. B. Douglas pointed out that in the differing ethos of schools 60 per cent. of the very bright children in grammar schools entered sixth forms, whereas only 29 per cent. of the children in comprehensives were in sixth forms.
Let me give four factors in explaining why these problems have arisen. The first is the question of size, which has already been mentioned. One can run a big school if the ethos is the same for all pupils. This is why Eton or Manchester Grammar School is easy to run. It is more difficult to run a large school where there are a variety of courses. In London the large comprehensive schools—or half of them at any rate—are falling apart, although I could mention one or two honourable exceptions. I do not believe, however, that smaller comprehensive schools will work. I think that we are perhaps in danger of embarking on a further fallacy. I do not believe that in the smaller comprehensive schools there will be enough pupils of similar interests and abilities to retain the highly qualified staff necessary and to reach a stage where one pupil inspires another. I believe that although the larger comprehensive school falls apart in terms of discipline, the smaller comprehensive will fall apart academically.
The only alternative to the large comprehensive school is to go back to the village comprehensive school with one teacher dealing with children from five to 14, seeing them through and knowing them in depth. That is the only "comprehensive school" that I know to be working at the moment.
I turn to the second reason why the comprehensive schools are falling apart, and again it is something that we did not foresee. With no philosophy in previous years of this system of education, those who came from colleges and


universities who were not academically inclined saw these schools as channels of social revolution. When I came to London there was a Communist cell in practically every school I knew. There are now Mao-Trotskyist cells seeking to destroy our system whether it comes from the Conservative Government or from the Labour Government. These are vicious organisations. Woe betide any teacher, not backed by a strong headmaster, who tries to hold out against Mao-Trotskyist groups in his school.
The third reason for failure in the comprehensive system is that we have moved from the comprehensive school to a non-streaming system as part of the dogma. I do not believe that all children are born equal. I believe that children are different in the way they learn, in terms of size, height, colour of eyes and brainpower. This is all governed by the dance of the chromosomes that is set at birth. Therefore, to treat children all in the same way is cruel. Bertrand Russell, who was not a Conservative and would never have sat on these benches, said that to educate together dull pupils and bright pupils would be the height of cruelty, and that is quite true. There is one school in London—Eltham Green—where discipline is among the best in any London school. but the teachers from there who visited other schools discovered that, where there had been non-streaming, disciplinary problems increased because the bright pupils got bored and those at the bottom of the scale became desperate because they could not keep up.
The Secretary of State was quoted in The Times Educational Supplement as saying that selection at 11-plus must Etc, and he went on to say
So must selection at 12-plus, 16-plus and any other age…
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "any other age". Does this mean that anybody can start a classics degree without being able to write English, an engineering degree without any mathematics? If so, this would certainly be the end of restrictive practices in the trade unions and professional organisations and in the middle classes. That statement was surely a nonsense similar to the sort sort of graffiti one sees in "PHS" of The Times, like the lines of "Down with

gravity: an end to reality". This would inevitably mean the end of schooling, and deschooling, as advocated by Dr. Illitch.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is having his bit of fun. I do not know whether he expects the House to take him seriously.

Dr. Boyson: Yes I do.

Mr. Prentice: I dealt with this problem and said that the reference to selection at 12 and 16 and other ages was within the context of the school situation and did not apply to the post school situation.

Dr. Boyson: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's statement but that was my understanding of The Times Educational Supplement. If I was wrong, at least I have had some delight out of this debate.
The fourth and final reason why the comprehensives are going wrong is connected with the situation of the working class child. The neighbourhood ghetto school will deprive the working class child much more than he has been deprived since State education came in in 1870. This is extremely dangerous, and I sometimes wonder whether the Labour Party, by bringing in the neighbourhood comprehensive school, knows what it is doing. It will create a feudal static class system with no social or intellectual mobility. Perhaps it believes that it can by this retain its pocket boroughs in the centres of cities, although perhaps that is an unworthy thought. However, that may well be the result of what is happening.
It must be said that the voluntary schools in London are the only schools for which parents are queueing up to send their children to, and in which teachers are vying with each other to teach. I would say that we need more of these schools rather than less. If they are wiped out I believe that the working class child will be more deprived. The middle class will move out of London and transfer their children to other schools and consequently the centre of London will become a ghetto. The poor working class child in the centre of the city will be held back. This is a very serious situation.
I should like to make one more point before I refer to Conservative policy [Interruption.] Yes, I am quite prepared


to do that. You did not win with yours yesterday, did you?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair. He has already been going on for a long time.

Mr. Boyson: Let me take two minutes to sum up. It seems to me, first, that we should concentrate on clearing up the problems of education instead of going on as we are. There are 700,000 children who each day play truant. There are schools in London with half the fifth year absent. Furthermore, there is a decline in literacy and numeracy. There are problems about recruitment to schools and these problems must be dealt with. Tulse Hill had only eight applicants for headship on the first occasion and only 11 when it readvertised.
Finally, I think it must be said on the Conservative side that we have never had a policy for comprehensive schools. It really seemed that they were all right if they happened slowly. We must look at the situation as it is. I should like the Labour Party to join with us in moving over to a system involving more parental control of schools. I think that we should concentrate on this important aspect of education.
I add only that I am all in favour of getting more parental choice of schools. Given that, we would find ourselves with more academic, single sex disciplined schools, which is what I believe 95 per cent. of parents and children want. Meanwhile, the destruction of any more good schools at the present time is to be compared with destroying stained glass at the time of the Reformation—and I say that as a Protestant. They cannot be replaced. If they are destroyed, we may find in 100 years that we have done untold harm.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. David Young: In making my maiden speech, I begin by conforming with tradition and paying tribute to my predecessor. He was a Member of independent mind, and he achieved a deserved reputation inside this House for his specialised knowledge of oceanography. He practised that speciality before entering the House. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members

will not think me discourteous if I do not decry the electoral decision which has made it possible for him to return full-time to his study of the subject.
I pay tribute to the Boltonians whom I represent. Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can pay them is in respect of their kindness of heart and their warmth towards people who are deprived and in some way in need. This has found expression for many years in the policy of the former county borough education committee of providing school meals during holiday periods. This is a discretionary power, and 700 children in the former county borough availed themselves of it last year. It is unfortunate that, with the reorganisation of local government, this facility in its present form is now to be denied to the children of my constituents, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider seriously whether this discretionary power should now be made compulsory. Many of the children concerned are deprived in one way or another. As a former teacher, I am aware that very many of them have this one cooked meal as their only regular form of balanced diet. If the Labour Party stands for positive discrimination in favour of the underprivileged, I feel that this is one way in which it can be made apparent.
During this debate, I have on several occasions viewed with concern what has appeared to be the playing-off of the comprehensive school against the grammar school. I feel that that is not the issue at stake. What is at stake is the question 'whether we are in favour of selection or against it. That is the cardinal issue that we face. In mixed districts such as my own, which have some very good grammar schools and in other parts some very good comprehensive schools, if we agree in principle that we cannot mix the two, how is a choice to he made? Are we to call our former secondary modern schools "comprehensive" and simply adopt the palliative of a change of name?
The Labour Party stands for a positive approach. It is one of non-discrimination. That is the issue before the House. Let us not cloud it. I sometimes wonder how many of us would be in this Chamber today if a form of selection had been applied to us similar to that which is


applied to children in our education system in many authorities.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I am extremely grateful to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young). I congratulate him on his maiden speech and I wish him every success in the short time that he is in this House. We all hope that we shall hear from him again.
In view of the pleas from the Chair for brief speeches, I shall not deal with all the aspects of education in Bolton which give rise to concern among my constituents. My particular interest is the welfare of deaf children, and I should like to have talked about that. I make only one point. During the last Parliament the Secretary of State and I exchanged a number of arguments on the subject of industrial relations and employment. We disagreed, but our disagreements were always friendly. I regard the right hon. Gentleman as a reasonable man and rather a nice chap. In the light of that, I ask him not to follow the disastrous policy of the previous Labour administration in trying to legislate by circular. If he wants to see the policy of his party carried into effect, I hope that he will introduce legislation so that people may understand the law.
As a result of attempts by Labour Governments to legislate by circular, the children of Bolton have suffered from what might be called political dogma, and their futures have been sacrificed on the altar of that dogma. I have no truck with those who say that this or that subject should be taken out of the realm of politics. I do not believe that education can be taken out of politics, and anyone who attempts to do so is saying that education should be taken out of the realm of democracy. I do not believe that we can do that.
I have never condemned comprehensive education in principle. If one has a green field site, obviously the best course is to build a comprehensive school rather than grammar and secondary modem schools. But places like Bolton have no green field sites. They have existing situations peculiar to their districts.
The old county borough of Bolton has five direct grant schools, which obviously

complicate any plans for the reorganisation of secondary education. In addition, we have the original ideas for comprehensive education in what are called "bases". A base is what might be called a campus of three schools—a grammar school, a secondary modern school and what is nowadays called a high school or secondary technical school. With the bases operating in partnership with technical schools, we have a very high level of education in Bolton.
I hope that the Secretary of State will come to Bolton and discuss the situation there. He is a reasonable man, and I believe that a compromise could be found to bring to an end this yo-yo of politics and education in politics, where a Labour Government and a Conservative-controlled corporation argue with each other and then a Conservative Government argue with a Labour-controlled corporation. I should like to see the subject taken out of the realm of political dogma. though, as I say, it cannot be taken out of the realm of politics.
If the Secretary of State heeds my plea, I am sure that he will find the Conservative leaders of the metropolitan borough council to be reasonable men. I believe that a compromise is possible which will achieve what the Conservative leaders and the people want. We want to go on increasing the quality of education, recognising that what we have is good, although it is not perfect, recognising that there is room for improvement, and recognising, too, that there should be more opportunity for a greater number of children to receive the kind of education given by grammar schools and such great institutions as the Bolton School, the Canon Slade School and other direct grant schools in the borough.
I hope that my words will not have fallen on deaf ears. I am very glad that the Secretary of State came back into the Chamber in time to hear my speach.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I begin this brief speech by apologising to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). In the last debate on education, which arose on the Gracious Speech, I read in HANSARD the following day that he gently and wittily took me to task for not being present when he made his concluding


speech. I hope that he will read my apology in HANSARD tomorrow.
The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about the friends of the National Union of Teachers, of which I am a member and of which I was an executive member, and he mentioned the size of schools. After a great development such as comprehensive reorganisation there is bound to be a learning process taking place everywhere. Many of us are in the process of discussing this matter, and we are undogmatic about it. One has to be cautious, because some Opposition Members seem to be exalting lack of dogmatism into a dogma. However, we are undogmatic about it. We shall discuss it and see what size of school we think best. It is an on-going process.
I am happy that the hon. Member for Wokingham stressed that differences had narrowed. Indeed, differences have narrowed. However, one would not think so from some of the speeches, for instance, the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who spoke after me on the Gracious Speech. One would think from the pessimistic attitude he showed to comprehensive education and to education generally that everything was wrong. The series of statements he made, which I have no time to refute, would almost bear putting on the shelves at the side of The Times Educational Supplement, as the ex-president of the National Union of Teachers said, with Edgar Allan Poe's "Tales of Mystery and Imagination". The reality is far different.
The outstanding feature of the debate so far has been the profound differences among Opposition Members. For instance, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to whom I went with deputations on numerous occasions, was a firm adherent to the 11-plus and would not budge one inch from it. It is clear that a large number of Conservative councils now embrace comprehensive education and would like to take it a step further. So, between those councils, the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wokingham there is a great deal of difference about comprehensive education.
On the Government side, we realise that the on-going process is bearing more and more fruit from year to year. I should like to make one or two comments as an ex-head teacher of a primary school and

of a middle school about the effect that comprehensive reorganisation and the abolition of the 11-plus in many areas has had so far and will have. We had to put our children through this examination—a narrow examination on the three Rs—for their future lives. That hung over the primary schools as a great cloud. It meant, for instance, that we narrowed what we were teaching them, rather than the tremendous experiments that have gone on in primary schools.
The British primary school is the most exciting aspect of education in the world today. It is absolutely beautiful compared with what it was in previous decades. It is getting better and better, precisely because that cloud has been raised. The 11-plus has disappeared in many places and will disappear everywhere in the future. The vast majority of the teaching profession welcome Circular 4/74 and condemn and abhor the Tory Circular 10/70, which tried to inhibit education.
I intend to make a brief speech, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot finish without making a couple of comments which, I think, are non-controversial. One of them—I said this in my maiden speech—is that we want smaller classes. Those who send their children to them, therefore agree with small classes, and should help the rest of us to get small classes.
My final observation concerns something about which we can all agree. As a head teacher of a school with a large number of coloured children, I was always appalled that these children had to read books in which all the heroes and heroines were white. I appeal to publishers and to everyone else to ensure that we cater for these children in another way, by seeing that they read about themselves and not only about us, and that they read books in which many of the heroes and heroines, children and so on, are coloured, so that they feel more identity with them. I am sure that my Liberal friends would agree with that.

6.40 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: To be quick, Mr. Speaker, may I go to the nub of my concern, which is not the comprehensive principle enshrined in Circular 4/74, but the uniformity that it trumpets. Having been in education until I came into the House, I do not know of a comprehensive system. I do not believe that


there is an ideal comprehensive school as such. Rather, comprehensive schools are noted for their distinctive characteristics. Some do a very good job for the average or under-average child. Others deliberately imitate grammar schools and have a particularly academic orientation. If hon. Members on the Government side acknowledge that, why can they not acknowledge a rôle for voluntary-aided schools and direct grant schools?
What are we all aiming for in our concern for education? I was glad that the Minister did not emphasise social engineering when talking of objectives. He mentioned it, but, thankfully, it did not figure prominently. He knows, as we all know, that there is a limit to what can be done in social engineering through schools. Very often, the way in which a child will perform is determined before it is born—by the environment or the poverty it is born into. There is certainly a limit to what can be done in the secondary school and we need more resources in the nursery sector.
Acknowledging that we are concerned with the individual potential of children rather than with social engineering, we have to design a system of schools which can develop that potential. So what about academic potential? There are academically-geared children. By the time a child is 15, it is surely possible to say whether he will be academically oriented, whether he is able or wants to go on to higher advanced work of an academic kind. We need schools for different potentialities. I should not say that grammar schools are perfect, but the academic education at the sixth-form level is very good. It is, of course, not true that comprehensives do not give good academic training, but, equally, they may not. So how do we ensure that good academic training is preserved?
The right hon. Gentleman talks in his circular of eliminating selection at all stages. but I hope that he will not close his mind to selection of some kind, say at 15—for example, into sixth-form colleges, which offer enormous benefits both in towns and in rural areas. In my rural constituency there is a comprehensive school with 700 pupils in which it is not possible to give a full range of courses in the sixth form.
A sixth-form college is an excellent idea. In a town where children come

from poor neighbourhoods, they may find themselves, able though they may be academically, in an academically poor comprehensive school, so there should be some form of escape valve, a means of countering that. A sixth-form college is a form of secondary education offering enormous potential.
I would argue also, as did the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), that those who do not go on at 15 or 16 into an academically-geared system should have some way of going outside the classroom to which many now feel condemned since we raised the school leaving age. It would be wrong to imprison such people, and often they feel they are imprisoned. Some sandwich schemes, or a means of the school being responsible for them without having to contain them within a classroom, could surely be devised—say, day release to a technical college. Let us have flexibility and options kept open.
Given individual differences, it is not possible to avoid selection, and I am disturbed at the way the circular seems to dismiss it. Another item in the circular that concerns me is the phrase—
Authorities will no doubt continue to have due regard to parents' wishes.
I and all my hon. Friends wish to see parental control more effective than it has been so far, particularly if we are to have comprehensive schemes spread throughout the country, as the Secretary of State says, in an accelerated fashion. I have had a case in my constituency of a child who is particularly gifted in music, and we have had a tremendous difficulty in persuading one of the local authorities to take that child into its school rather than the comprehensive school to which the child would be entitled to go.
With the reorganisation of local government in the turmoil it is, the right hon. Gentleman should give us an assurance that he will urge local authorities to pay particular regard to parental wishes in the schemes he is now producing.
Parents are concerned also about the emphasis on accelerating schemes and the way in which the circular says that
in future major projects of expenditure must make a contribution to reorganisation.


I hope that this emphasis on spending money for reorganisation will not prejudice other schemes such as that in my constituency at Menston, where an upper school has now been delayed to such an extent that it will probably not be completed until 1985, and where there is still a nineteenth-century primary school. These conditions of overcrowding call for resources. Not only my constituents but parents generally are concerned and anxious at the tone of the Labour Party on education. They look for some guidance. help and reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to make a brief contribution to an interesting debate.
It is clear that the Labour Party is not against selection, but is against the type of selection now in use, namely, social selection. The 11-plus issue clearly revolves around the widely-documented data which establish the extent to which selection at that early age is a form of social discrimination. No one doubts the need for boarding education, for example, but our criticism is that this type of education is supplied on the basis not of need but of social privilege.
I have taught in a voluntary aided school. It was voluntary aided not on the basis of religion but by chance of history and an ancient foundation. I have nothing against history. I taught history at school with that degree of impartiality for which I am known in all my public utterances. However, this school played its rôle alongside other selective schools within a grammar and secondary modern school structure. When the London borough of Enfield finally completed its tortuous deliberations and adopted a comprehensive system, the one school which, representing 7 per cent. of the pupils at secondary schools, remained outside the system was the voluntary aided school to which I have referred. The result is that the school has the greatly exalted status which the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has already identified. There is a vast queue waiting to enter the school. Does anyone think that parental choice is a determinant

on which children are accepted into the school? Does anyone think that it is the children's choice? Of course not. What are being applied are arbitrary academic criteria at a time when, at the age of 11, the pupils are reflecting much more their social background than their academic abilities and potentialities.
We welcome the commitment to the extension of comprehensive education represented in Circular 4/74 but we must go beyond it. Selection in our society and in our educational structure must be tackled beyond the bulwarks represented by the voluntary aided schools, and so on to the direct grant and public schools. The Opposition are defending the situation now from the outworks of privilege. It is our task to move on to the inner citadels.
Finally, one would have wished that the further introduction of comprehensive education would be reinforced by the necessary resources. It is clear that comprehensive schools are suffering not only from the difficulty of still being in competition with the selective system but from the inadequacy of resources, and that is gravely affecting the recruitment of teachers and the education provision which those schools can offer. We shall not rest till sufficient resources are made available in our schools so that true equality of opportunity, which is essential to modern social democracy, is provided.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: I shall be brief in making two points.
Many hon. Members must be aware of the disquiet that parents throughout the country are voicing about secondary education. Many of them feel, particularly in relation to education officers, that they are being treated little differently from doormats. They feel that they are not consulted and that there is little understanding of what parents today are looking for. I accept that not all parents feel this, but a great many do.
Against that background, it is worrying that the number of grammar schools has declined from just over 1,000 to over 300. We therefore view Circular 4/74 with disquiet.
We note in the circular the directive that all schools should be comprehensive, and yet the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that there is no Act on the statute book to force local authorities to go comprehensive. I submit that this is no more than political blackmail, and none the better for that.
The other aspect I wish to raise is that of consultation. My local authority is at the moment championing the cause of comprehensive education. It is trying to destroy the grammar school of Northampton Town and County, a school which is 433 years old, of 800 boys and thus obviously single sex. This school has served our community over many years, providing the backbone of Northampton and, indeed, providing a member of the Front Bench who serves in the Department.
Section 13 notices have been issued—indeed, some would say nailed to the door. They certainly could not be ripped off, so firmly were they put on this time. The reaction has been that over 13,000 electors have signed a petition, and that figure was at the last count yesterday. Are we to say that these people are ignorant, that they have no knowledge of what is best for their children and grandchildren? Have we the arrogance to suggest that they are wrong and misguided? In my submission, we have not.
People in Northampton are placid on the whole, but they are incensed. They look to the Minister to stand by his commitment to consultation. His circular states, on page 3:
… parents in particular should be informed and have the opportunity of making their views known while proposals are being formulated and before they are submitted.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Section 13 notice went out during the middle of April and that it was on 3rd April that the parents of boys at the school that I have mentioned were consulted for the first time? A few days later the Section 13 notice went out. Is that the form of consultation that the Secretary of State is looking for? I do not believe it can be, or that it is the form of consultation that anyone can honestly say we look to.
I respectfully request the Secretary of State to have a very close look at this

matter. I shall be writing formally to him to receive a petition on behalf of the parents, the villages and the old boys within the 60 days, but I shall be grateful if, before we come, he will look particularly at this point of consultation in relation to his circular.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Members for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) on their contributions to this debate. I know that the whole House looks forward to hearing them speak on education and many other subjects in future.
I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he puts education before social engineering, but I find it difficult to reconcile with the assumption in Circular 4/74 that fully comprehensive education is the only acceptable solution. We do not accept that. The fact that we do not accept this inflexible and doctrinaire attitude does not mean that we have a root and branch opposition to comprehensive education. We do not say, and have never said, that all grammar schools should be maintained. We say that some of those grammar schools and direct grant schools, and schools which have a very high academic standard. can —indeed, should—be maintained, and can be maintained without any detriment to the extension of comprehensive education throughout a local authority area.
The policy of the Secretary of State demands the destruction of all grammar schools. It demands the destruction of direct grant schools, to fulfil a policy based on ideology and social engineering. But I ask him to consider this. When such a school is reorganised, one school in a large city, and the pupils are distributed to the neighbouring comprehensive schools, it could be argued that the intake of those comprehensive schools is marginally improved. But when such a school is destroyed, great wrong is done to achieve precious little good. In any fair, unprejudiced analysis based on education and not on social engineering, such schools would be allowed to retain their identity and carry on with the good work that they have achieved over a long period.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the size of schools. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the size of schools and said that his circular was not dogmatic. In fact, the circular devotes four lines to the question of size, but tells us no more than that some large schools work well but that some people prefer small schools.
That is not a very satisfactory statement. It does not rule out the possibility of the introduction of very small, non-viable comprehensive schools in underprivileged areas simply because the buildings are there. People might think, "We have a small building; it is a nice suitable solution to say that we have a comprehensive scheme and call this comprehensive education". What happens to the people of academic ability in that underprivileged area—perhaps 5 per cent. of the total population of the school? They are brought up in a climate which is not congenial to academic study. I should have liked the circular to make reference to that type of situation and suggest that that type of school was not viable and should not be accepted.
Nor does the circular endorse the idea, which has been developed over the last few years, of smaller yet viable comprehensive schools. The hon. Members for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and Streatham (Mr. Shelton), with their particular knowledge of the situation in London, referred to the problems of very large comprehensive schools. Many parents and teachers have become increasingly alarmed at the problems particularly associated with very large comprehensive schools.
There is a widespread belief that very large schools have become unmanageable. We had some evidence of that today from the hon. Member for Brent, North. There has been, it is widely believed, a breakdown of discipline, because teachers cannot know all their pupils and do not even know each other. There is the growth of truancy, which has reached alarming levels but on which there are no detailed statistics.
Much has been made of the fact that a headmaster does not know his own staff, let alone the pupils, and the staff and pupils know him only by sight. But this can be overcome, and, of course, it is overcome. It is overcome by the

organisation within a large comprehensive school. I am aware of how this is done, as other hon. Members are on both sides. But the result of that organisation is that a very large number of the best qualified and the most experienced teachers are not in the classrooms teaching; they are swallowed up in tasks of administration to compensate for size.
I believe that the real battle of education is conducted in the classroom, in the laboratory and in the workshop. The best use of resources is to have the experienced teachers there. That is another disadvantage of the large comprehensive school.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made an enormous contribution to the possible success of the comprehensive system of education by giving an impetus towards smaller comprehensive schools. I wish that this Government's circular had had the courage to carry on the move which she initiated, because it would have been supported by many teachers and parents. The move towards smaller schools allayed the fears of many teachers and parents. Circular 4/74 fails to endorse the movement to smaller schools, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give that matter further consideration.
My third criticism of the circular is that it is unquestionably an attempt to get comprehensive education on the cheap. Behind the reference to the maximum use of existing buildings and available resources is not only a commendable desire for sound economy but a determination to rush into comprehensive education, however half-baked the scheme. It reveals a passionate conviction that the pattern of organisation is more important than the children it is supposed to serve. It opens the way for the merging of schools, often on split sites, and calling them a viable comprehensive system. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the children will be the beneficiaries.
There is a disillusionment among parents who, when they saw the comprehensive ideal five or 10 years ago, and saw it as something of a crusade to get rid of selection, thought that the benefits to their children would be enormous. I was one of those who thought that it would be of enormous benefit to my children and to education generally. I


am not completely disillusioned. I still see great advantages in the system of comprehensive education when it works effectively. But it would be a rash proponent of comprehensive education who said that we had throughout the land satisfied customers where it had been introduced.
The truth is quite the reverse. The truth is that in many areas there is disillusionment. I am sorry to see any rush towards further comprehensivisation when the priority, in my view and in the view of many teachers with whom I confer, should be the consolidation of what has already been started rather than further schemes which in some instances are bound to be second-rate because the better ones have already been put forward and accepted by the Department.
We have heard a certain amount today about parental choice, notably from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). Circular 4/74 pays mere lip-service to parental choice. It says that, no doubt, authorities will continue to have due regard to parents' wishes in respect of their children's education. The truth is that local authorities will be able to have such regard only so long as parents choose what the right hon. Gentleman considers to be socially acceptable. The implementation of the circular will either severely restrict or completely eliminate choice. For parents it will be a case of "Choose any school you like so long as it is the neighbourhood comprehensive school". The only choice open to a parent—and there will be some choice—will be to buy a home in a catchment area of the school which he judges the most desirable for his children.
One can easily envisage the situation in which parents would choose to move to the catchment area of a school which stands for academic standards, traditional values and discipline. No doubt, when parents exercise that right and make that decision, they will be condemned for using their money to buy a privileged education. But, with the erosion of the area of choice, it will be the only way in which they can influence their children's education, and I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite really desire.
I turn next to the position of the voluntary schools. They are our partners in education. They are full partners in the education service of the United Kingdom, and now they are told in a circular that if they do not conform to the local comprehensive system they will be denied substantial financial aid. Dictatorial bullying of one's partners in education is bound to cause harm and great distress in the voluntary and aided schools.
Clearly, the circular misunderstands the concept of denominational schools. As one of my hon. Friends said, the denominational school was not designed merely to offer religious instruction; it has something special to offer from its Roman Catholic or Anglican community. To be one stage in a comprehensive system —the 11 to 13 section or the 13 to 15 section—is no substitute for a school that has prided itself on being a community in itself embracing the whole of a child's secondary school life from 11 to 16. Yet that will be the future for some of these schools. They will be brought into a pattern if they are to survive financially. They will be brought into a pattern where their rôle will be that of the transit camp and not the full community life that they exercised under the previous system. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give them close and careful consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman has his priorities wrong in Circular 4/74. No comprehensive reorganisation on the cheap is likely to be effective. It will only discredit those who believe that comprehensive education can be something worth while for the children of the United Kingdom. Nothing but distrust and harm can come from a dictatorial and bullying approach to the voluntary schools, and the destruction of excellent schools in pursuit of dogmatic objectives is educationally unsound. Circular 4/74 may advance the cause of social engineering, but it will do nothing to improve educational opportunities for the children of the United Kingdom.

7.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): There have been a number of maiden speeches today, not least the first speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) from the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He made a loyal speech


about his predecessor, John Jennings, whom I knew and who was a fellow member of the National Union of Teachers. It was not, perhaps, a speech for nonconformists, but it was a stout speech for all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) made a succinct, elegant and most persuasive speech. I thought that he put Front Benchers in their place in a most effective way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) made a maiden speech which, for a Scotsman, was, I thought, very patriotic. He was most telling in his remarks about the educational needs of the under-privileged children in his constituency.
One of the memorable phrases of this debate was that of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). who described my right hon. Friend and himself as being "ordinary blokes". I consulted an authority on the "ordinary blokes of this House and have some statistics. I note that 40 per cent. of us are from Oxbridge and 164 went to public schools. Among the "ordinary blokes" in Opposition, 204 went to grammar schools. Out of the total membership of the House, I understand that 70 per cent. went to university, which proves that sometimes even the universities do not do their job well enough.
In the time available, I cannot hope to reply to all the points that have been raised in this far-ranging debate, but will attempt to cover some of the salient points.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in opening the debate, declared our opposition to selection, which is unjust both in principle and in operation and which has caused so much talent to be wasted and so many hopes to be stifled. That the public at large have themselves come to see the unfairness of selection has been evident in the general welcome accorded to the advent of secondary school reorganisation. It is clear that Circular 10/65 made articulate a groundswell of opinion, and it is significant that in England and Wales the large majority of authorities have declared in favour of reorganising.
I turn now to the question of the variety of schools and parental choice.

Remarks were made on this subject by the hon. Member for Burton, the hon. Member for Brent. North (Dr. Boyson)— in a despairing and breathless speech—the hon. Member for Wokingham, and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman).
Opponents of comprehensive education claim that a fully comprehensive system eliminates variety and removes parental choice. This overlooks the realities of the selective system. Choice in such a divisive system is the prerogative of the few—those who successfully negotiate the 11-plus. Since they are unlikely to opt for other than the grammar school, I should have thought that the choice was purely a paper choice. The argument also overlooks the variety and range of courses within a comprehensive school. The choice in these schools remains available to the child, all along the line, without the arbitrary and unjust restraints imposed by the now out-dated system.
The Government have been concerned to emphasise to the authorities the importance of early and full consultation at a stage when account can be taken of the views of teachers and parents in the formulation of schools. This in itself should result in a variety of schemes.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), in welcoming the circular's reference to bilingual schools, inquired about the consultations with local education authorities. The authorities and teacher associations in Wales were consulted before the circular was issued. My Department is always ready to discuss proposals with any authority. Indeed, discussions have already taken place with officials of the Clwyd and Gwynedd authorities about bilingual education in their areas. I hope that that answer at this stage is satisfactory to the hon. Member.
There has been reference to the size of schools. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) worriedly referred to dilemmas at the top end of the comprehensive school and rather winningly admitted to the indefensibility of the grammar schools.
I think that we have learnt from experience in the last seven or eight years. The concept of a comprehensive school has changed over the years, and as a result we no longer regard large schools as an indispensable prerequisite for the success of comprehensive schools. The ingrained tradition of the old separatist system was


responsible for those preconceptions that a comprehensive school must be an aggregate of secondary modern and grammar schools rather than a new and different institution. We do not reject large schools —some have operated in recent years with signal success—but it has become clear that a wide range of courses can be made available in schools rather smaller than was once thought likely.
So I say, I hope not too provocatively, that Conservative Members show a lack of understanding of the ways in which experience has shown that schools of six-form entry, and, indeed, smaller schools, are perfectly capable of offering a wide range of subjects to children of all ages and abilities.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): Peterborough is in the process of having this great change thrust upon it. Since the hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the Government have changed their minds on the important aspect of size, does he not think that they are being a little precipitate in wanting to push through at the present speed the permanency of something which may, in a few months or years, show that they ought to change their minds on that, too?

Mr. Jones: I did not welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I must say that it was felicitously phrased, as usual. I shall stick to my guns and say that we shall go by experience. We have indicated that we are not in any way dogmatic.
Another thread of the debate was indiscipline and truancy. The hon. Members for Streatham, Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Hatton), the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and Brent, North referred to it in discussing the behaviour problems which have emerged in some of our schools. It is too facile, I think, to attribute these difficulties to the sizes of the schools concerned, or to the raising of the school leaving age.
The causes of indiscipline are complex and cannot be divorced from more general social problems. Schools have to contend with changing and conflicting values. It is our belief that the rejection implicit in selective systems of education is in itself conducive to adverse attitudes and indiscipline. We think that the comprehensive schools now are finding their way to new systems of pastoral or personal care.
Trunacy is another phenomenon which is attracting much publicity. A survey is being conducted, and it would be premature to state conclusions, but I do not think that there are any grounds for supposing that a high incidence of truancy as such is associated with the comprehensive school. The remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side, made in a most authoritative and experienced manner, bear out my views on this matter of discipline and truancy.
The hon. Member for Burton, in his maiden speech, also referred to academic standards. The suggestion has been made that comprehensive education gives rise to a levelling down process. I think that this attitude shows a failure to understand the comprehensive system. In the comprehensive school the ablest child has available to him, not only the traditional range of academic courses, but a wider range which can offer a better balance.
The grammar schools, however, cater for the able minority and yet, in the grammar school, there is much waste of ability, where a proportion of the intake finds the course too heavily academic in character and inappropriate for its needs. At the same time, the inefficiency of any selection that is carried out at the arbitrary age of 11 results, as many of us would agree, in a large overlap of ability between grammar and modern schools.
I refer briefly to our experience in Wales. Some areas in Wales have had a fully comprehensive system for more than 20 years, and there is no evidence that academic standards have suffered—quite the reverse. The proportions of school leavers going on to further and higher education from those very areas are among the highest in the United Kingdom.
I do not think it would be right in a debate about education, and in particular about comprehensive schools, if we were to omit a reference to teachers. I think that the major changes in the education system, be they reorganisation or the raising of the school leaving age, give rise to some teething problems, and, although a number of our comprehensive schools are working under difficulties, there is a growing realisation that the interests of most of the children concerned are being met more effectively


than was the case under previous arrangements. It is to the credit of the teachers, and it says much for their dedication that in the best interests of the children they are surmounting the difficulties with which they are confronted.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West made references to neighbourhood schools. I think the comprehensive school is a community school—I would put it as bluntly as that. The Opposition have claimed that neighbourhood arrangements condemn some children to an inferior education. But under the selective system the majority of the children continue to receive their education in their own area while deprived of the leavening of the ablest groups. What I think is required is the improvement of provisions in their neighbourhood.
Home support is increasingly recognised as indispensable to the work of the school. The community school then, given parity of treatment—if need be, preferential treatment—can contribute to the quality of life in the community and also, as an important bonus for the community, win the support of parents. It may well be that in some areas which lack community facilities local authorities will have to look increasingly to the amenities of the schools which can be supplemented to the advantage of both pupils and the general public.
To sum up our attitude on this topic, we most emphatically wish to encourage participation by the community. and we think that comprehensive schools in any neighbourhood would thereby be better served.
We do not accept that that implies a removal of responsibility from the head or from the staff. We say, rather, that it gives them an opportunity to win parents' support for the more effective education of children. Therefore, the Government's policy on this issue, on which hon. Members have dwelt at length in this and other debates, displays a positive aspect.
In conclusion, where comprehensive schools have been given a fair chance to develop, where they are comprehensive in more than name alone, we know that they are establishing themselves as institutions that offer a wide range of opportunity to far larger numbers of pupils

than do those institutions for which selection is still enforced.

Orders of the Day — SHARP REPORT

7.26 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that I am right in saying that if the Minister who has just come into the Chamber succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, the speech that he will make will be the first that he has made in a full daylight debate since his appointment giving him special responsibility for the disabled. I have already welcomed his appointment, not just because the hon. Gentleman is a constituent of mine, but because of the importance of the opportunity that it offers him in dealing with the problems of the disabled.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: And of the work that he has done in the past.

Sir G. Howe: As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) has pointed out, we welcome it, too, as recognition of the work that he has done in the past for the disabled.
In the previous Conservative Government I was a co-ordinating Minister with responsibility that attempted to reach out into other Departments in Whitehall than my own, and perhaps I may pass on the assurance—if I may so call it—that the hon. Gentleman will not find that the difficulties of co-operation will all melt away merely by virtue of his appointment. I wish the hon. Gentleman more power to his elbow. I expect that he will have to keep at it with his usual tenacity.
The hon. Gentleman may not find it easy to achieve as much as I am sure he would like to do, in the context of the social policy of the Government of which he is a member. Both sides of the House accept that there are inevitable constraints on expenditure on the social services in the present situation. There always have been and probably always will be. Equally, the House accepts that the disabled have a special call on the community for understanding and practical help. Nevertheless, the necessity for choice is imposed by the facts of the world in which we live. The fear of hon. Members on this side of the House is that the present Government have already made, or are making,


certain choices in the broad sectors of social expenditure that, regrettably, may preclude the opportunity of giving to the disabled the priority that we believe they should have. I urge the Minister, with his personal responsibility towards the disabled, to see, so far as possible within this Government, that that does not happen.
I suggest that the questions the Minister should be asking are whether it is sensible in the interests of a balanced social policy, to commit such large sums of money to indiscriminate food subsidies, to commit in advance such a significant sum of money to the pledge to abolish prescription charges, and to commit a significant sum of money to the total standstill on all rents. Those sums already add up to approximately £620 million.
For the purpose of illustration, I suggest that it was wrong of the Government to commit themselves so readily and swiftly, without, apparently, overt pressure or representation, to refund a sum as large as £10 million—a most significant sum in the social services field —to the trade unions which did not register under the Industrial Relations Act.
I do not intend the remainder of my speech to be tendentious; nor do I intend those observations to be tendentious, because they are important when trying to assess the framework of the Governments social policy as a whole. The object of this debate at this time is to give the House an opportunity in the short time available to influence the Government's thinking on this subject. Some hon. Members have suggested that the opportunity has arisen almost too early, but experience of a debate on this subject in another place suggests that that will not turn out to be the case, and I hope that the Government will profit by the observations of my hon. Friends, who seem to outnumber Government Members.
I begin by expressing thanks on behalf of the whole House to Lady Sharp for the care and thoroughness with which she prepared her report on this subject. Even though not all hon. Members will agree with the whole structure of her argument, it presents an essential and invaluable framework for informed discussion.
The first question arising is that with regard to cars or "trikes", and it is manifest that cars are preferred, partly because they are safer—I shall have more to say about that—and partly because they are available for passengers as well as drivers. Finally, but by no means least important, they are manifestly cheaper.
Questions of eligibility arise, but if the fundamental case is accepted, that cars are preferable to "trikes", one asks the Government whether it is not possible to start soon, shortly—indeed, almost now —in relation to the new applicants, on the use of cars rather than "trikes". One would like to know how far any shortage of suitable cars is likely to inhibit such a change of policy. I understand that that is not likely to be the case.
The second point, even if the first choice is made in favour of cars, is about the overall future of "trikes". Should they remain as an option available to the disabled? There seems to be a good case for saying that they should be so available, for example, to the 16-year-olds. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many disabled drivers fall into that category.
It is also desirable, surely, that they should remain available as an option for those who would actually prefer "trikes" to cars, perhaps because the car is impossible to adapt, although I should be interested to know how far the Minister agrees that adaptation is an impossibility. Much opinion now argues that there is no vehicle that cannot be sensibly adapted for a particular driver.
If "trikes" remain an option, has the Minister any idea of how many disabled people would still want to exercise the option in their favour? What then would be the effect of retaining them as optional, but for a much smaller number of people, on the unit cost of the "trikes"?
These are among the points made by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, whose chairman, as the Minister knows, is a fellow constituent of his in my constituency, but the central point I am making is to ask whether there is any reason why the disabled should not continue to have a choice as between a "trike" and a car if safety is of no real concern.
That brings me to the next topic with which many people have been concerned—the subject of safety. I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject, because observations by the Secretary of State and one of my hon. Friends are now the subject of investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and I have no wish to do anything that will increase concern about this topic if and in so far as such concern is unjustified. The Minister will appreciate that concern continues to be expressed.
Strong language expressing concern was used in another place and it has certainly been used by the Disabled Drivers' Action Group. The Minister himself has voiced such concern in the past. Moreover, the Motor Industry Research Association reports, if I read them correctly, show that an unmodified "trike" falls short of existing or draft requirements in at least two respects apart from the much discussed question of performance in high winds.
I read the observations by the Minister's noble Friend in another place, but I have two questions to put to him. First, are newly issued "trikes" being modified to eliminate all the shortcomings disclosed in the MIRA reports? Secondly, will the Minister, if it is not pressing him too hard—in view of his past observations his words on this subject will have authority that should command respect—give the House his assessment of the question of safety so as to inform and reassure opinion on this subject so far as, but no further than, reassurance is justifiable? It is not satisfactory that this important question should rest, as it seems to continue to rest, between well documented and apparently responsible allegations on the one side and unpublished and incomplete reports on the other. I make that point is no tendentious sense, but because this is an important subject.
I turn now to eligibility. It is clear that the proposed extension to passengers, outlined by Lady Sharp, and which we regard as desirable as soon as it can reasonably be achieved, will add significantly to demand, to take-up and, therefore, to cost. Therefore, it is easy to understand why Lady Sharp suggested different criteria to keep the additional cost down to the £3 million that she mentioned. The House will recall that

the criteria put forward by Lady Sharp broadly involve eligibility for those who need a vehicle for getting to work, for getting to a place of further education or training, or for looking after a household. Acceptance of those criteria and of the whole of Lady Sharp's report would involve withdrawal, when existing vehicles became unusable, of vehicles from about 13,500 people who are now entitled to them. I agree with the Secretary of State in regarding such an outcome as unacceptable.
If we reject that restriction completely, so as to admit for cars a whole new group of disabled passengers, significant extra cost would be incurred. Has the Minister any better idea now of the additional numbers likely to be involved on that basis and of the extra cost? Is there any reason to disagree with the £12 million which appears to have been accepted by both sides in the debate in another place?
If so, it is worth keeping in perspective just what that £12 million amounts to, particularly in the context of this Government's pattern of social spending and priorities. Although on one view, in the hard-pressed social services sphere, it is a large sum of money to find, it is less than the amount to be spent on subsidising bread and cheese in 12 months and less than one-tenth of the cost of subsidising the price of pint of milk by 1p. That is the basis upon which we urge that high priority should be given to the disabled.
Many other important questions arise. some of them matters of detail. For example, there is the question of responsibility between the Department and local authorities for the operation and servicing of vehicles for the disabled. The House will recollect that Lady Sharp concludes that the responsibility should remain that of the Department. I should be interested to know what, if any, conclusions the Government are moving towards on that subject.
There are other detailed questions—for example, exemption from vehicle excise duty and the requirement that a vehicle should be conspicuously and permanently adapted. That gives rise to certain difficult borderline cases. We should, therefore, like to know how far that requirement is likely to continue.
There is the question, increasingly important in the light of rising fuel costs, of the adequacy of existing cash allowances where such are being paid.
There are larger questions which will require further consideration. In principle, should provision for the disabled in this sphere be by means of cash or by a vehicle? I can certainly see the attraction, not least because it opens up a range of options, of dealing with this matter by a cash payment, but I can also see some of the difficulties that would be involved in that approach.
There is another large question: how far is it right for provision in this sphere, whether by means of a vehicle or of cash, to be means tested? I see, and, indeed, have argued this evening, the need for social policy in all areas to be so designed that, so far as we can, we bring most help to those in greatest need, but I am reluctant to accept the argument for another means test. I should prefer curtailment of other indiscriminate benefits and to bring help without a means test to the whole effective category of the disabled if that is possible within financial limits.
I should be interested to know whether the Minister is in a position to advance the Government's thinking on this subject any further than was vouchsafed in another place. We have only an abbreviated time for this debate. Its function is to give the House an opportunity to express its views so as to influence the Government's thinking on a subject which is not contentious between the parties. I hope that the Government will study all the points that I have mentioned. They are by no means exhaustive. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friends and other hon. Members say in the debate.
Meantime, I repeat my hope that an early start will be made, ahead of the main review of provision for the disabled which will come forward in the autumn. I think that the argument for some progress and change is already accepted. For example, is it possible to switch to the provision of cars now in place of "trikes"? Would it be sensible to start, so far as additional provision is contemplated for disabled passengers, within the criteria suggested by Lady Sharp in her report, not by way of curtailment, I hasten to add, but by identification of additional groups in the passenger rather

than the driver class as an area of first sensible priorities?
In closing, I make no apology for concentrating on the question of mobility. There are many other equally important aspects, some of which were touched upon in Lady Sharp's report, but as The Times, in a leading article on 26th March, observed,
among the many needs of disabled people their own transport should come very high on the list of priorities. It can be decisive in enabling them to earn a living and to preserving their self-respect. It can make all the difference between a life of isolation and an active rôle in the outside world.
It is upon that basis that I justify having concentrated on that part of the subject in my few observations this evening.

7.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) for his warm and sincere words of welcome to me on my appointment. This is my first opportunity to welcome him in his new appointment. I say little more now than that the right hon. and learned Gentleman always looks happier on the Opposition side of the House. It is a mark of my good will to him that I trust that felicity and function will continue to march together. That will enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as my Member of Parliament, the better to look after my interests in the House and help me with all my personal problems.
One of my main problems now is that I may have to wait for the conclusion of the debate to answer all the points of detail which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised.
I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in congratulating Lady Sharp on her lucid and well-argued report. She dealt with both indoor and outdoor mobility. I shall concentrate on the latter, as it has been of the greatest interest to right hon. and hon. Members.
Lady Sharp deserves the thanks of us all for setting out the issues so clearly and succinctly. We may not accept all her conclusions, but it seems to me that her terms of reference required her to do the impossible. She was asked to propose a comprehensive and satisfactory package without using the resources needed to do so. I am told that that


is a ploy familiar to keen students of the last administration, but it is one which my right hon. Friends do not propose to adopt.
It may strike hon. Members on both sides as odd that the Opposition, having failed to publish the report after it had been in their possession for nearly five months, are now so enthusiastic to debate this important document. I remind the House that we published the report within weeks of taking office.
Similarly, the previous Government were unwilling to publish the reports of the Motor Industry Research Association on the tests carried out on a three-wheeler. In fact, they were more than unwilling; they said that it could not be done. We did it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were anxious to publish the MIRA reports in full, but we were reluctantly obliged to accept that the report on side-wind tests could not be published without breach of commercial confidence. Therefore, we made the other reports available to hon. Members as fast as we could, and with them provided a synopsis of the side-wind tests which left out nothing concerning the Model 70 tricycle.
If any hon. Members wish still to dispute that the course of events in connection with the publication of the MIRA reports was otherwise than I have briefly recounted, let them say so now. I shall make available for their inspection the correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Director of MIRA. That correspondence belies beyond any shadow of doubt the contention that my Department could have published details of the side-wind test in full if it had wished.
The Conservatives were fully aware when in office of the figures of incidents involving three-wheelers, yet did not regard them as being of sufficient consequence to justify taking speedy action to withdraw or modify the vehicles, a fact which I trust will be borne in mind in any consideration of the safety of the three-wheeler. As the Minister of State of my Department in the previous Government, Lord Aberdare, frankly admitted in another place during a debate on the subject on 10th April, the whole subject of the vehicle service is one of extreme complexity, and it has difficult financial implications.
As my right hon. Friend explained in the statement she made contemporaneously with the publication of the Sharp Report, the Government are now in consultation with a wide range of organisations representing disabled people—those in medical and social work and other professions—and the local authority associations. We are consulting them on the issues raised by the report, both specifically and in the context of the wider question of the priority to be assigned to the various needs of the disabled, of which mobility is one. The Government have also made clear that they are not only considering Lady Sharp's recommendations but are making a study of cash benefits for the disabled, which will form the subject of an announcement at the time of the October review.
It follows from what I have said that I am not in a position today to declare my right hon. Friend's intentions about the future of the vehicle service and about such important matters as whether contributions should be made by recipients, how we should select priority categories, and whether cash grants would be preferable to cars. I am aware that certain organisations favour the provision of grants rather than cars to enable the disabled to exercise a choice on the way in which they meet their transport needs.
There are cogent arguments both for and against a system of cash grants—arguments that were briefly mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, in another place on 10th April. All I can say now is that the Government could not accept Lady Sharp's proposal —which, as I have said, I feel was made in the context of an impossible remit—to disentitle a substantial category of disabled people. Even with the transitional safeguards proposed, those disentitled would probably be the most disabled of those now eligible. That is one of the many factors we are taking to account in our overall consideration.
I can assure the House, as my right hon. Friend and I have done before, that in circumstances of this kind we intend to make a practice of taking decisions in the light of the views of disabled people themselves. We wish to act with them and not exclusively for them. While we must allow time for full consultation on the report, we do not intend


to allow this to delay action on issues on which it is clear that there is universal agreement.
If we were to do everything that we should like to do, we should face a high level of expenditure on the vehicle service. It can be reasonably argued that it is illogical to make care available without making provision for disabled passengers. Lady Sharp suggests that to do so, employing present criteria, might triple the present net cost of supplying vehicles or allowances to NHS recipients. This excludes first issues to anyone over 70 years of age. If passengers are to be eligible, can we justify treating those over 70 differently? Can we seriously contemplate taking away a vehicle when the eligible person reaches that age?
If we entitle everyone eligible on present criteria, whether drivers or nondrivers, we shall be talking of much greater expenditure even than Lady Sharp's £12 million, which she suggests could be a considerable under-estimate. We must not forget that prices have risen considerably since Lady Sharp made her calculations. I must admit that, unfortunately, any estimates still involve a large amount of guesswork. There are unavoidable difficulties in the way of getting firm and consistent figures. One of the main problems is that while we might make a rough estimate of the number of disabled non-drivers who could be eligible—and if no regard is paid to age the possible total is formidable—we can have no idea of the number who could find someone to drive a car for them.
All that we can be certain of is that the additional expenditure would be large. The root of the problem, therefore, is one of financial priorities. This is the most important of the matters we have specifically asked the organisations to consider.
The Government have also to examine the report with their review of cash benefits for the disabled undertaken under Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973. This review has to be completed by the autumn, and it is for that reason that we hope to get the views of all interested organisations on the vehicle service as soon as possible. There are many other problems, apart from the basic one of the availability of cash. There are, for instance, questions related

to the continued production of the three-wheeler for those who are or feel unable or unwilling to use a car. There is also the equally difficult problem of the administrative apparatus required for a much larger and more complex service.
I want to develop the question of the retention of the three-wheeler. I do not want to be misunderstood in what I shall say. It is fully accepted that the three-wheeler has shortcomings. We must not for a moment pretend that in general it is preferable to a small car. I would much rather see disabled people with mobility problems but who were able to manage a small car being given the opportunity of doing so. Many who have been in touch with me have said that they cannot manage a small car. If the Government were to decide to change to small cars tomorrow, the supply position, as Lady Sharp notes, would make it impossible to replace all the three-wheelers for some time. Thus, it is inevitable that the three-wheeler will remain with us, albeit in reduced numbers, during the immediate future.
My right hon. Friend and I are therefore vitally concerned about its safety. We have accordingly ensured that everything that could be published on the subject has been published. The point about the three-wheeler is that it is necessarily a functional vehicle, incorporating many features specifically designed to meet the needs of the most severely disabled. It is these features that have largely given rise to criticisms by drivers accustomed to more conventional vehicles.
No one can argue that the three-wheeler is the best possible answer, and we have constantly improved it. It provides a means of mobility for severely disabled people and has done for a long period. Many users are now fearful that because of the strong pressure for its immediate withdrawal they will be left without any means of transport after having driven a three-wheeler quite safely for a number of years.
Many, because of their particular disabilities, would be unable to drive a car. Others would not want to. Many, having mastered the three-wheeler, would not want to learn to drive a car and take another test—even assuming that they had a qualified driver who could accompany them until they had become sufficiently proficient to pass the test. To do away


with the three-wheeler entirely would mean that the severely disabled school leaver would be rendered immobile at an age when mobility was of special importance, because a 16-year-old can drive a three-wheeler but he must wait until he is 17 before he can drive a four-wheeled vehicle. I do not have the detailed information requested by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, on this point. Later in the debate, however, I shall attempt to meet the request which was quite legitimately made for full information. I would not wish hon. Members to think that I was in any way complacent about the general question of safety. The House will know that I am not complacent.
My Department asked for certain tests to be undertaken, and the results of these are available to all hon. Members. Quite a number of disabled people have taken the trouble to write to Ministers categorically dissociating themselves from the criticisms published and expressing fears that they may be deprived of a vehicle which they regard as eminently suitable for their personal needs. I know how strongly many disabled people long for a car so that they can be like anyone else and take their families with them when they go out. I know what a difference it would make to the lives of so many even more seriously disabled people if a car could he provided for the households in which they lived.
Mobility is a priceless asset, which perhaps only those who have lost it can fully appreciate. That is why I would not agree to any solution which involved withdrawing vehicles from any of those already entitled to them. There is no escaping the consequence which clearly emerges from Lady Sharp's report, namely, that a move towards cars will involve substantially increased expenditure. That does not mean that it cannot be done. It means that it must be weighed against other claims upon resources and, in particular, the claims of the disabled themselves. In any case, quite apart from the priorities, it seems right to look at the question of vehicles and cash provision.
I recognise that there is an argument for treating the development of the vehicle service as something quite distinct from the development of a proper structure

of cash benefits for the disabled. This distinction may not be wholly realistic. Disabled people span a great range of ages, types and severity of disablement and areas of need. The Government have to look at the whole range of their social responsibility and also at the priorities for development of help for any one broad group.
For some disabled people mobility is not the most immediately pressing need. For others, as Lady Sharp has said, help in respect of mobility is not necessarily best provided through developments within the vehicle service. She took a very great interest in the provision of satisfactory housing for disabled people. Whatever view one takes it must be sensible to develop our proposals for cash benefits with Lady Sharp's report in mind and to consider our policy on the proposals in the report in the light of the structure of cash benefits which we see emerging. Certainly progress has been made in the past by a piecemeal approach. It would be unrealistic to expect to achieve everything desirable in one leap. Nevertheless, a coherent strategy is needed and we are determined to achieve it as quickly as is humanly possible.
I opened by saying that I was not sure what had prompted hon. Members opposite to initiate a debate on this subject at this juncture. I close by saying that I hope it was to inform rather than divide the House. I know now from the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, that the former was his intention.
I welcome the debate as giving hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on Lady Sharp's report—views which the Government will consider very carefully no matter from which side of the House they may come. The House as a whole, regardless of party, has shown a deep and abiding interest in problems affecting disabled people. I shall listen closely to the points raised by hon. Members during the debate and, with permission, will hope to deal with them in replying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker I should draw to the attention of the House the fact that a considerable number of hon. Members desire to make


contributions to the debate. It would be helpful if Members confined their speeches to a maximum of 10 minutes, if possible.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: The Minister for the Disabled and I, and one or two others, have always tried to keep party politics out of this subject, I think rightly. Therefore, I shall not tease him about his speech being "poacher turned gamekeeper" in one or two respects. We welcome the report as a basis for a good discussion, and we thank Lady Sharp for having made it. Those of us who gave evidence to her would like to thank her particularly for her personal kindness in listening to our views, and also for the fact that she heard, took, or read evidence from over 200 sources. This was not a committee but one person. It was a creditable performance.
I take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who set up the Sharp Committee. We ought to pay tribute to him. I regretted the delay in the publication of the report. I congratulate the Government on their speedy publication.
This debate is premature, however, because quite a number of us have not even had a chance to see some of the disabled groups who are very much concerned with this matter. As chairman of the all-party disabled drivers' group in the House, I should like to give a slight plug: for next Wednesday, on the all-party Whip, hon. Members will see that there is to be a meeting with the disabled drivers' organisations. If anyone present wishes to attend, he will be very welcome.
I shall not deal with the safety aspects of this matter. I want to concentrate on the question of the vehicles. It is quite clear that the three-wheeler is on its way out for those who do not want it, but will, I hope, be retained for those who do. The report has given the Government the basis on which to make two main recommendations on two broad issues. The first is whether there should be a three-wheeler or a four-wheeler. That is obvious and is fairly well accepted; it is now hardly an issue. The other is as to whether the Department should provide the car or the cash on a capital grant system. This is an impor-

tant matter on which hon. Members should give their views.
On the question of criteria, we shall always argue about eligibility for a car or a three-wheeler, or whatever it is. It is an extremely complicated issue. It is a question of getting the line drawn right. I should need to make a long speech to deal with that matter. But, wherever the line is drawn, it must include the disabled passenger.
I should like to sound a note of warning. In the past, some of the estimates, often given in good faith by the Department, have proved to be too great and the take-up has not been anywhere near the estimate. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Government come to make estimates.
In this short debate there is no time for any of us to tell what I call rather moving stories about individual cases. All of us who are interested in this subject now know the problem. Most of us have driven these vehicles, and so on. Members of Parliament as a whole know of many tragic cases from personal experience.
My preference is for the cash grant system, with a reasonable maintenance allowance, and bits and bobs such as the licence, and so on. I see that this was rejected by Lady Sharp. But it has four advantages. It could certainly operate quickly as a scheme once the criteria have been agreed and the organisation has been set up. I was rather terrified by paragraph 96 of the report, in which Lady Sharp gave four to five years as being the time required for the changeover to four-wheelers. But if we have a cash grant system allowing the person to buy the car which suited him best, we could operate this scheme much more quickly.
The second advantage of a cash grant is that the disabled can have a car of their choice, within the cost bracket of the grant. I hope that people can get away from the idea that all the disabled want Minis. Everyone talks about Minis. But there are fat disabled for whom a Mini is too small, and there are disabled with large families who want a large car. There are disabled who are single and want a small car. There are disabled with differing disabilities. It is much easier to get into certain types of car—not, perhaps, including a Mini. Some


even want a van with a ramp at the rear. So the idea of choice by cash grant has many advantages in that way.
The cash grant also has the advantage that it gets the Government and the civil servants out of the rather fussy involvment with day-to-day responsibility for all the problems of the vehicles. The cash grant has a fourth advantage, with which all hon. Members may not agree, in that it can much more easily be means-tested. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) to say that he did not agree with means testing on this issue. But I do not think that we should object to it. It is an absurd waste of resources to give a grant to a wealthy person who does not need it when that grant could be spread to people who may be on the margin. So it should be means tested, but fairly means tested. Any cash grant and maintenance grant should also be regularly reviewed, particularly in these days of inflation.
My final point is the main one that will face any party which has to deal with this matter—the overall amount of money which is to be put into this project. One always returns to the slice of the cake argument, and that always brings one back to the Treasury. I mean nothing offensive to the Treasury officials, but they have the governmental responsibility for husbanding resources. The Treasury rather tends to squeeze on this matter. Its past attitude has been that, if a vehicle or the vehicle service is unsatisfactory, some people will never bother to apply and, therefore, it is cheaper. I hope that the Minister will agree with me when I say that that attitude is utterly deplorable. The House of Commons must say tonight, "We shall have no more of that attitude from what we call the Treasury".
What hon. Members want is not just a fair deal for the disabled but a good deal for the disabled. The disabled want to play as active and normal a part in life as possible, and Parliament should see that they are given every help to do so.
Most Members of Parliament would disagree on the question of the slice of the national cake and how it can be carved up. The Minister has already staked his claim with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which

now stands on the statute book in his name. He has always been a great campaigner for expenditure on this matter. But on this question of vehicles for the disabled we are dealing not exclusively with the mobility of one person but possibly with the more social aspect of the mobility of, perhaps, a family, and it needs an attitude that is entirely different from the previous attitude, which was about a vehicle for one driver. I believe that the public would give their wholehearted support to a large expenditure on this matter.
One of the main reasons why many of us are in Parliament is to do what we can to uplift the lot of the less fortunate in life. I hope, therefore, that Parliament as a whole, when the time comes for decision on the Government proposals, wherever they may be—I hope it will come in a debate later this year—will vote against anything which is less than really generous to the disabled and, for once, will unanimously demand that the disabled are given a good deal.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I wish to deal with mobility in three aspects. The Sharp Report is clearly headed "Mobility of Physically Disabled People"—in all its aspects. First, however, I wish to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Government Front Bench. He really is an honourable friend. I hope that my pursuit of technology for disabled people does not cause me to lose his friendship. I am sure that it will not. I should like him to take up many of the causes that I have been pushing for a long time. I must refer also to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), whom I regard as my friend in this sense.
If we look at this matter carefully, we can prove that maximum aid to disabled people can also be economically sound. From three points of view, it is possible, by providing mobility, and where the motivation is right, to get disabled people into employment, making their contribution, and to enable them to be independent. It is possible also, where they are severely handicapped and young, to educate them so that, again, they can be independent and earn their living.
Isolation is a terrible state. It is terrible to be immobile. I quote from the book


written by Philip Nicholls, who is the director of Mary Marlborough Lodge:
Mobility is often, the key to the whole programme of rehabilitation of the severely physically disabled.
We should tackle mobility in all its aspects. If we do not provide mobility where it is possible to do so, Parliament is guilty of keeing people unnecessarily in prison.
The Sharp Report dealt with the subject of three-wheelers. We tend to spend a great deal of our time on the question of long-distance mobility, and we forget that a substantial number of people merely want to have the opportunity to move around in their own immediate environment. They want to go to the shops or to the park, and therefore an appropriate wheelchair would be helpful.
A person's immediate environment, in which mobility involving five steps can get a disabled person to the toilet and in that way give him independence, takes some planning. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that in the publicity given to the Sharp Report a great deal was said about three-wheelers and not enough about toilets. This aspect of the subject is of particular importance to somebody who is immobile, and it has been dealt with in the report on the crippled child and in the Amelia Harris Report. There are 1½ million people who could be given mobility quite simply by being provided with aids in the home. I saw Lady Sharp this afternoon, and she said, "It is all in the report The trouble is that society and the public are not aware of this aspect, which is of extreme importance to those concerned.
I welcome what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) from the Opposition Front Bench. It seems that every time I get up to speak in Parliament we have the same questions with different people asking them—

Mr. James Dempsey: And the same answers.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Yes, and sometimes the same answers. At least, I hope for better things from the Minister of State.
I welcome the Sharp Report, for its attitude on the question of four-wheelers represents a step forward. I share the

view of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that we must decide on the type of vehicle to be used. The hon. Gentleman and I agreed that we would not discuss cases. He is the chairman of my group, and I am the secretary, and together we could produce thousands of cases that have come to our notice.
I shall refer to one person only to illustrate the theme. Given the application of advanced technology, it is possible for a quadriplegic to drive his own vehicle. Indeed, it is not only possible. It is a fact. Mr. Paul Bates of Horsham, who contracted polio as a soldier in Malaya, is a living example of this fact. For Paul the vehicle required is a milk float, for in that vehicle he can become a spectator at a rugby football match.
I agree with the Member for Banbury that the type of vehicle must be suited to the person's needs. I congratulate the Disabled Drivers' Action Group on its campaign against the three-wheeler. However, there was a slight element of overkill in that campaign. Its backlash is now being felt. I have had some sad letters from people saying, in effect, "If you take my three-wheeler from me, I shall die". That is not the language of an emotional Welshman from the Rhondda; it is the language of people who have written to me and said, "I am passionately fond of my three-wheeler". The choice, obviously, must run from a milk float to the existing three-wheeler. The chances are that the Mini or the Daf from the production line may fill the need in the majority of cases.
I am deeply concerned about the fact that 13,500 people may lose their vehicles. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends seems to disagree with that remark, but, if the Sharp Report is accepted, the 13,500 people who find themselves in that situation will still be there in 20 years. It may be that in that period the figure will be 13,900 or 13,200, but that group will still exist. This is one part of the Sharp Report which must be totally rejected.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The Minister said that he did not accept that part of the report—in other words nobody who has a vehicle at present will lose it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). I hope that, if that proves not to be so, he will come with me into the Division Lobby. The category to which I refer must not be neglected.
The next group with which I wish to deal is the group of people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot drive. The answer sometimes is a nominated driver, but a nominated driver is not always convenient. If the Minister wants the names of people who can help to provide vehicles for the severely handicapped, I assure him that I can provide —I think this applies also to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—the names of technologists who can help him to defeat this problem. If it cannot be done by advanced technology, then it must be done by a substantial mobility grant. There are many people—such as the Mary Greaves of this world, a past honorary director of DIG—who want to go out only occasionally but find it extremely expensive. We should think in terms of providing money for private hire cars or taxis.
Since I promised to be brief, I shall cut out my remarks on the problems of wheelchairs. I believe that there is a good case for producing a powered, stable, safe wheelchair for use on pavements. We must discover what is the best wheelchair to be used, and this applies to powered chairs as well as ordinary wheelchairs.
I end by stressing the problems of the disabled person who faces the task of getting from the living room to what we in Wales call the ty bach, the toilet, or to the kitchen. Here, I should like to see my hon. Friend spend money on assessment centres and rehabilitation units. Almost incredible work is done at Mary Marlborough Lodge, Oxford, where 20 per cent. of patients have bowel and incontinence problems and yet, with care and advice and without much technology, can gain their independence provided that they can walk a short distance.
I hope that the three aspects of mobility will be taken into account. Having said that, I end with the plea that I always make in this House. I wish to God that someone would get hold of the Treasury knights and bang their heads

together to make them realise that there are two sides to a balance sheet. If they concerned themselves less with the expenditure side and tried to realise how they can make savings by encouraging people to work if they want to work and by keeping people out of hospital if they do not want to go to hospital, there would be additions on the plus side. I hope that my hon. Friend will do something about this. I assure him that the all-party group will give him every possible support whenever he wants to take on the Treasury—and God bless him.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I join in congratulating the Minister on his first major speech following his appointment and in expressing warm appreciation of the work which Lady Sharp put into her report. She produced it with remarkable speed. I am sorry to say that that speed was somewhat inhibited in the latter part of last year. She wrote a most incisive and readable report and made a great many recommendations with which I heartily agree, especially on the importance of suitable designs for houses for the disabled and on the need for more attention to be given to the use of wheelchairs for short distances.
I warmly commend and am glad that the Minister has accepted Lady Sharp's plea that there should be no discrimination against the disabled non-driver. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will also give a sympathetic hearing to her recommendations for greater flexibility in the administration of the service. Having listed those and other points in which the report deserves wholehearted commendation, I join with other hon. Members in saying that it is also open to very serious criticisms.
The first criticism is that Lady Sharp brushes aside in a somewhat offhand manner the dangers of the three-wheeled vehicle. It is understandable that she should have wished to postpone consideration of this matter until the MIRA report was available. Again, I congratulate the Minister on his decision to publish as much of that as was possible in March.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has also given attention to other documents which were not available to Lady Sharp,


such as the report by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs on the three-wheeler and the article on that report published in the magazine Which? during March. But Lady Sharp should have considered what advice she would offer if the MIRA report proved to be damaging with regard to the dangers of the three-wheeler vehicle—and it has proved to be damaging. This should have been considered, especially because the report estimates that it will take four or five years to replace the three-wheeler completely.
The MIRA report shows that the standard P70 vehicle which was tested in August last year failed basic safety tests and only passed them when it was modified substantially and re-tested in September. It is a very important point that all the P70 models on the road at present are of the type that was tested with unsatisfactory results in August last year. There are none adapted in the manner of the model that was tested in September.
There is also the very disquieting feature of the MIRA report about the wind test. I accept the Minister's good faith when he argues that it was literally impossible to publish the result of that test in full, though I put to him the question which has been put to me on behalf of disabled drivers. Why was not it possible to publish the details identifying the other vehicles tested only as A,B,C,D, etc., as has been done with other tests on vehicles published by MIRA?
All of this was unknown to Lady Sharp at the time she wrote her report. But the reason why she included the dangers of the P70 was not that the investigation by MIRA was still in progress. She decided, in her own words, quite early that the three-wheeler would be replaced by a car in any case as soon as possible. In my judgment, that was a precipitate and unwise conclusion. I recall my own experience over the 10 years that I have been agitating on this subject. I came quite early to the same conclusion, but I very soon went back on it in the light of experience for the reasons instanced by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones).
Lady Sharp's report admits in paragraph 34 that some disabled people can drive the three-wheeler who would never be able to drive a car. That is a very different matter from another way that Lady Sharp expresses this distinction in other paragraphs when she talks about some people "preferring" the three-wheeler or about the three-wheeler being "a better bet". I find it very difficult to imagine anyone preferring a three-wheeler if they had a free choice between a three-wheeler and a car and if also they could handle a car. It can be assumed, virtually without exception, that those who choose the three-wheeler are making Hobson's choice.
Lady Sharp admits that some will suffer if the three-wheeler disappears. We do not know exactly how many but there is that very alarming figure in paragraph 139 which gives the estimated number of those who would be deprived if all the various categories were added together—those unable to use a car instead of a three-wheeler, those not of age to drive a car, and those who would be disqualified by Lady Sharp's new criterion of need.
The total figure is 13,500. However, the Minister has told me already that this is in the nature of an estimate which he could not confirm without a great deal of research. I must remind the House that that figure of those who would lose all means of transport under Lady Sharp's proposals includes a small but significant number of war pensioners—according to paragraph 79, more than 250 of them. The report is very ambiguous and even confused in its treatment of war pensioners.
I shall not go into this matter in the detail that I might have done if we had had more time, but I ask the Minister to compare paragraph 141 in the Conclusions—which appears to state that war pensioners should continue to enjoy preferential treatment—with paragraph 83 in the main body of the report, which appears to say that war pensioners should not continue to enjoy preferential treatment with regard to the criterion of need. Whether Lady Sharp means that they should or should not have preferential treatment, it must remain true that some war pensioners, who are unable to drive cars and. therefore, can use only tricycles,


are bound to be among the 13,500 who would be deprived of all mobility under her recommendations, along with thousands of National Health Service applicants.
Such deprivation of mobility for thousands of people I know that I only reiterate what has been said already, but it cannot be said too emphatically—whether on the ground that a particular vehicle which is the only one suited to them is to disappear, or that they cease to be qualified by the criterion of need, would be inhumane. It would also be intolerable on grounds of safety if, during and after the transition period—which itself will be at least five years—increasingly obsolescent vehicles were allowed to run on the roads until they either fell to bits or became involved in fatal accidents.
The Secretary of State has already said, and the Under-Secretary of State has confirmed, that that is unacceptable. It follows, therefore, that the three-wheeler must continue to be manufactured, and inevitably its unit costs are bound to increase as the demand for it diminishes. The question is whether there is any way out of this dilemma.
The Disabled Drivers' Action Group has made two suggestions in a document which I received today. The first is that much more attention should be given to trying to solve the problem of adapting the four-wheeled car, aimed eventually at eliminating all need for the three-wheeler. This would be an enormously expensive process, and, as it approached successful completion, unfortunately the unit costs of the three-wheeler would continue to rise astronomically as long as anybody needed it. I am afraid that that merely substitutes another dilemma.
The second suggestion is that cars should be provided as of right, with the alternative choice of a cash allowance towards a tricycle—in other words, a combination of the two alternatives which Lady Sharp advocates. However, the allowance would have to be much higher than the cost of the car and, once again, there is no escape from the dilemma of cost.
I conclude that there is no easy and cheap solution to this problem. That is an obvious conclusion. Therefore, the

Secretary of State has no choice but to take the difficult and expensive solution —that is, the course of making cars the standard issue and keeping the three-wheeler in production for those who can use nothing else, despite the rising cost. Having been committed to this view for at least the past 10 years, I can only say that there is nothing in the Sharp Report which has caused me to change my mind.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend on the speed with which they have brought forward this report. It is something that is vitally necessary. I am glad that it has been brought forward today, and that we have had an opportunity to discuss it.
The House may know that in Watford there is a colony—Kytes Drive—of bungalows for disabled people who cannot walk and who are in wheelchairs. I have visited the colony and have been to all the bungalows. Without one exception, the conversation has always turned within three or four minutes to the three-wheeled vehicle. These disabled people are all—again, without exception—dissatisfied with the three-wheeled vehicle, for three main reasons. They say, first, that it is unsafe, secondly that if they take it to a garage to be serviced the garage "just don't want to know", and thirdly, that they cannot take their wives and their children, if they have any, with them on their journeys in their three-wheeled vehicles.
I associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), and by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse). Let me deal first with the safety aspect of these vehicles. The Motor Industry Research Association report states:
As tested the Invacar model 70 tricycle did not meet the requirements of EEC regulations concerning steering system penetration when subjected to a 30 mph frontal barrier impact.
Additionally, the requirements of the draft regulation on fire risks were not met, due to excessive fuel leakage from the fractured frontally mounted petrol tank.


It is generally agreed by the people who use these cars—and they are, after all, the people to be considered—that they are unsafe.
I need not stress the point about the garages not wanting to know. But there is the point of the drivers being alone. Loneliness or isolation is a terrible thing. Perhaps three times a week I go down to my constituency by car. When my wife cannot be with me I have an hour's journey there and an hour's journey back alone. I feel the loneliness just for those two hours.
I ask hon. Members to picture a man who has to be lonely all the time he is driving. The loneliness and isolation may drive him practically insane. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are both compassionate. Look at the speed with which my right hon. Friend acted to rectify the matter when she found today that I could not act for two people in Watford before a tribunal because of a regulation. They will both understand the plight of people who are lonely and who are in their three-wheeled vehicles without either wife or children.
Next, there is one part of the Sharp Report that causes me grave concern. In paragraph 180 Lady Sharp divides people into three categories. The first two categories embrace those who virtually cannot walk at all. The third is those who are in employment but who cannot walk.
In paragraph 46 Lady Sharp says:
It can be argued—and it has been argued to me—that every person who is so severely disabled that he or she is virtually housebound without a car, needs one just for the freedom it gives to get out. That would mean admitting all, or possibly all under a certain age, whose disability is sufficiently severe—on whatever test of this is adopted—who can either drive a car or find somebody to drive it.… I have not thought it possible to accept so wide a plea.
In paragraph 51 Lady Sharp suggests:
the disappearance of the present categories 1 and 2 of those eligible for assistance (i.e. those whose claim rests solely on the fact that they can virtually not walk at all); and the enlargement of category 3 (i.e. those with very limited walking ability who need a vehicle to get to and from work or to carry out the duties of a household).
In paragraph 135 Lady Sharp goes on to say,
Cars should be withdrawn when the purpose for which they are supplied no longer applies: e.g. when a car was supplied to enable

a disabled person to get to work but he or she has ceased to work.
I do not think Lady Sharp can be aware of what it means to be unable to get about. I am glad my hon. Friend has stated that he does not accept that part of the report. It would actually prevent disabled people who had previously had cars from having cars once their vehicle was finished and once they had ceased to work. I am glad to know that my hon. Friend does not accept that part of the report. It is not compassionate at all. But that still leaves people who are not yet in the category of disabled persons, but who became disabled, who want a vehicle, who are not working, who have no family, though they may have a wife, and who would be totally immobilised if Lady Sharp's proposals were put into effect.
Unfortunately, I have on my car a disabled person's sticker. I have painful arthritis of both hips and the spine. But I am lucky enough to be able to afford a car—perhaps I should say still to be able to afford a car—and I can use that car with my wife and get around when I want to. I depend entirely on it. I cannot walk very far without it, and if I did not have that car I should be practically housebound.
I do not think that Lady Sharp realises what it means to be housebound without the possibility of moving about. I am lucky now in that I have a job. I am a Member of Parliament and therefore I do not come into Category 1 or Category 2, but if I get worse and I cannot discharge my duties as a Member of Parliament, I shall have to retire. If I had no money, I should be housebound without a car.
This kind of thing can be frustrating; it can drive somebody almost mad. I cannot help thinking that if it had been Lady Masham who wrote the report instead of Lady Sharp, this provision would not have been inserted, because Lady Masham knows what it is to be immobilised, for she goes about in a wheelchair.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider this matter very seriously and not to accept that part of the report which dispenses with Category 1 and Category 2, because if he accepts that, he will be penalising many deserving people. They have no other life, they will be housebound and


able to do nothing whatever. All the hope they have is to get about in a car. If that car is taken from them, we shall be very guilty indeed.

8.47 p.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: I hope that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) will forgive me if on this occasion, in the interests of brevity, I do not follow his interesting remarks. Nor will I deal with some of the points made by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), with whom I have had the pleasure of working on this subject in the past and with whom I so strongly agree on this subject and, sometimes, on others.
On this occasion I can absolutely guarantee that I will not make a long speech. I am suffering from a minor disability—a complaint called phlebitis. I mention that to show that doctors are just as delighted to talk about their ailments as anybody else. But the medical advice I have received is to avoid long periods of standing. I shall follow that advice and sit down quite soon, but perhaps I might say in passing that an occasional intervention might not be unwelcome.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Surely if the hon. Gentleman has phlebitis it would be in order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow him to sit down while he is making his speech.

Dr. Winstanley: I prefer not to have any special dispensations on this occasion.
I join hon. Members in welcoming this report and this opportunity to make some progress on what is an important and difficult matter. I join other hon. Members in thanking and congratulating Lady Sharp on her report and thanking all others who have given her advice and assistance in compiling the report. We all await the Government's proposals.
In that connection I quote the right hon. Lady's statement to the House on 25th March, when she said that the Government will
consider the recommendations in the report alongside their study of cash benefits for the disabled.
She went on:
we will discuss the questions raised by the report as well as the wider questions of the

priority to be assigned to the various needs of the disabled of which mobility is one, with organisations representing the disabled, as well as with local authorities, the medical profession and others interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 31.]
We are some of those others interested. I hope that in due course it will be seen that the Government's final proposals owe something to what we say here this evening.
I want to say a few words about the philosophy which should underly our thoughts on matters of this kind. Our aim should be, not to compensate the disabled person for his disability, not to award him a car as some kind of bonus so that he will not feel quite so bad about being disabled, but as far as possible to neutralise his disability so that he seems almost to be without it. Mobility is crucial to normal life and our aim, therefore, should be to enable the disabled person to move about his home, to travel to and from work and at work, and to get around the district in which he lives for leisure and recreational purposes as well.

Mr. Ernle Money: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all of this of its nature must be only a step on the way to a full disablement income?

Dr. Winstanley: I agree with that, and we have heard one or two things already that suggests that perhaps we shall take certain steps along that road, and I would certainly accompany the hon. Gentleman along that road myself.
The provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—I am proud to have been one of its sponsors with the Under-Secretary—are slightly different. For example, we award a telephone to a disabled person, not for the disabled person to be able to summon aid in some terrible emergency but to enable him to widen his horizons and improve the quality of his life. Here we are enabling a person to move around who could not otherwise do so, and we are thus enabling a person to live a normal life rather than compensating him for not being able to do so.
I turn now to some details of the report. First, the proposal that cars should replace the three-wheelers is obviously right. The reasons given by the noble Baroness are that cars are


cheaper, safer and, to most people, preferable. It will be costly, and it will take time. We should, therefore, encourage people, where possible, because of the time factor to take advantage of the proposal in paragraph 136 of the report to take a cash allowance for the conversion and running of their own cars. That right—and I hope it will become a right in the fullest sense—must he made widely known. I shall turn to the question of publicity later.
The Automobile Association has published a report today saying that the cost of motoring in this type of car is roughly £800 per annum, so we are not discussing a very generous provision.
I come to the consequential question of what to do with the tricycles. Obviously they must be phased out in part as they are replaced by cars. I say in part, because there are some who will still wish to keep their tricycles. On the question of safety, my personal observations tell me whatever may be said by some other distinguished observers, that in the way in which these tricycles are used, the kind of people who use them, the circumstances in which they use them and the places in which they use them, they can sometimes be regarded as safe.
I agree that we should do nothing to deprive anyone who now has a vehicle of a vehicle. But, if it suggested that these tricycles are not safe in all circumstances, we should be starting to do something now to make them safe by attention to steering and to the petrol system. We should also start to pioneer and develop a new and wholly safer model. There will always be room for a vehicle of that kind for some people who would prefer it.
Another matter, which has been responsible for most of the resentment and frustration, is the category of entitlement. At present one cannot talk about widening the category, and I accept what has been said about priorities, but within that context we must underline the provisions for disabled passengers. These unfortunate people are unfit to drive but are fit to work. They have failed in certain cases in the past to obtain any kind of provision merely because they are too severely disabled. We have to deal as firmly as we can with these people.
Within the context of those brief remarks I move on to mention two needs which may seem to be contradictory. There is, first, the need to spell out clearly whatever are ultimately to be the categories decided upon. In my experience a great deal of unhappiness results from people misunderstanding the categories, people applying who should not have applied and who are ultimately disappointed, and people who are led on to a path that they should not have embarked upon at all.
We are now recognising that we must explain people's rights to them. I speak from personal experience. We see changes in other Government Departments—for example, changes with regard to supplementary benefits. At long last, we explain the entitlements to people.
In that connection, the House may be interested to hear a quotation from a letter written by a distinguished previous Minister of Health, Mr Kenneth Robinson. to the former Member for Orpington, Mr. Lubbock, as he then was. This was on the question of making known the categories of entitlement, and these were Mr. Kenneth Robinson's words:
The conditions of eligibility are not set out in a document issued to the general public. Ultimately eligibility depends always upon the clinical decisions of medical specialists. The wide variety of physical conditions and other factors that might influence eligibility would call for a document of such complexity that potential beneficiaries would be confused by them.
Times have changed. We must risk the confusion and make the categories utterly clear to people so that those who might benefit indeed do ultimately benefit and so that they do in fact apply. That is one of the needs—to spell out clearly what are to be the categories so that there can be as little doubt as possible.
Having said that we must spell out the categories clearly, I say also that there is a need to provide for discretion. I believe we cannot define these categories so exactly as to avoid the possibility of injustices and hard cases. I believe that there has to be a discretionary element if the whole scheme is to work fairly. I know that the hon. Gentleman's Department recoils from being given the responsibility of exercising discretion, but I believe that on this occasion it has to


accept that responsibility, because I think that it will prove to be necessary.
Finally, on priorities, there is obviously a need for some limitation. But are we to limit by restrictive categories or otherwise? My view is that we should keep the categories as wide as possible but also have regard to the whole social background of the case. Many who qualify may not need help and they should not have it forced upon them if they do not ask for it. People should not be encouraged to have vehicles if they do not ask for them. I think that the disabled should aim at being, and believing themselves to be, wholly normal Therefore, it is perfectly right in this field to look at the whole social background to each case. It seems that we may be beginning to think about that, and doing that may move this whole business rather more to the social security side of the hon. Gentleman's Department than the health side.
That brings me to some anxieties which have been expressed to me by medical colleagues working in the disabled vehicles service. They apparently fear that the whole invalid vehicle service is to be handed over to the social security branch of the Department, to the War Pensions Branch at Norcross. Indeed, I am told that a circular letter to that effect by Dr. Seelig of Roehampton has been sent out. It may be that if the criteria are to be kept wide, or even to be widened, regard will have to be paid to the whole social background. Therefore, the right hon. Lady's social security branch may be the right people to do that. But the doctors and the health department will inevitably have to play a very large part in assessing individual cases. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will be able to reassure the doctors and others who now work with the artificial limb and appliance centres that they will still have a major part to play in this important work.
I am very glad to join hon. Members on all sides of the House in welcoming this report and in urging some speedy progress on it.

8.58 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am very glad that the noble Lady, Lady Sharp, was wise enough to

make full use of the very wide discretion given to her in her terms of reterence to deal with many aspects of disablement which have received far too little attention.
The part of the report relating to vehicles has received by far the greatest publicity, but I personally attach enormous importance to her section on mobility in the home. It is not just a question of building new homes for the disabled, although local authorities now have a statutory obligation to include reference to this aspect in all new housing projects put before the Minister. The problem looms large also in the adaptation of existing houses, as people with advancing years acquire new disabilities. Often the adaptations need be only slight.
I have been startled at the number of people coming to my surgery whose only requirement is that they should be able to get to the toilet. There are people with circulatory disabilities who have become double amputees and have to wear heavy trusses and cannot get to the toilet as it is at present. There are people living in older properties, which are about to be modernised, who can get to the toilet where it is now, but who will not be able to get to a "loo" upstairs. These may seem small details, but they make all the difference between enabling a man or a woman to feel independent, and on the one hand, almost as a child in the household, on the other.
There is, too, the important question —important in my constituency with its many steep streets—of ramps up steps leading to houses, whether council or private. It is important that further research should be made into electrically-powered wheelchairs without an attendant, for use outside. I have seen many of these chairs in action inside and have been much impressed by their present state. I am convinced that, with a little modification, they could be used to give much greater independence to people who cannot use a car.
Like most reports, the Sharp Report is a bit like the curate's egg, because there are parts of it that I dislike intensely. One part which I dislike is in paragraphs 45 and 46, which would restrict the category of those eligible to have a vehicle. If that provision were adopted, it would be a deplorably retrograde step.


I welcome the provision to allow a disabled non-driver to have the mobility that would be given by a vehicle, but I also believe that we must not allow the "trike" itself to go into disuse.
I have had a number of teenage children—I hardly dare mention the number after World Population Year—and I know only too well how much mobility matters to youngsters of 16. They can be inhibited for life if they cannot be mobile at a time when their friends are leaving school, going to parties, social clubs and so forth, and are caged within the walls of their house or dependent on older relatives to take them around. I think it extremely important that we should retain the tricycle for youngsters of 16 or those who have not, perhaps, the confidence to pass the test for another vehicle.
But I welcome the report in general, and trust that the House and the country will be generous in its implementation. Personally, I would rather see the money used specifically to help the disabled than go towards taking 5p off the price of cheese. We could implement this report twice over in that way, and I believe that we have got to get our priorities right and give to those to whom life has dealt a hard blow a chance to take their normal place in the community, as all of us here are fortunately able to do.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: Lady Sharp is to be congratulated on the clarity and precision of her report, the more so since the necessary background information was not always available. It still astonishes me that there is no precise record of the number of disabled people in the country, and it is apparent from the report that a number of people entitled to provision under the existing Act were not aware of the situation.
However, to admire the quality of the report is not necessarily to approve of its conclusions and recommendations. I cannot accept or approve of the paragraph referred to by other hon. Members in the conclusions, which says:
Severe physical disablement should not in itself entitle any NHS applicant to a car. This should depend, in addition, on the need of the disabled person for a car in order, broadly, to maintain him or herself and the family or to contribute to their support.

To implement that proposal would be to deprive many, who are already the victims of very tragic circumstances, of their lifeline—very often a lifeline to dignity and normality. That criterion is narrow and without vision, and is almost commercial in its concept.
It has been suggested that individual cases should not be mentioned, but disability is what the discussion is about, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I refer to one gentleman in my constituency who has suffered amputation of both legs. He has had 48 operations, and as a result of his severe disability he is not able even to wear artificial limbs.
The position in that household is that the wife is a nurse and works permanently on nights in order to maintain the family. The total income of the family, incidentally, is less than £23 per week. Because one of the lunacies of the family income supplement scheme is that the male of the household must be the wage-earner, the wife, whose circumstances force her to take on this responsibility, did not qualify for this supplement.
That is the situation. The man is without legs. The family has a very modest income. There are two children to provide for. The husband can make no contribution financially. He cannot even take part in the decorating of the house or the gardening. The one consolation in these bleak circumstances is that the Ministry has provided a car, which enables the family to venture out occasionally. Obviously, they cannot do that very frequently, but it enables the man occasionally to savour some dignity and responsibility.
If Baroness Sharp's proposal were accepted, even that tiny area of consolation would vanish along with the vehicle. How can we measure a loss of this nature? I do not know. Certainly, a car can provide those intangible aspects such as simple happiness, and freedom to move about. This must be a powerful factor in our considerations and calculations.
Too often, it is not just the disabled individual who suffers but the whole family. In fact, stress and depression are the constant companions both of the parents of the disabled child and children of disabled persons. Last week, I came across such a case quite incidentally in


my constituency, when a youngster, certainly no more than 13 years of age, unburdened herself to me, a complete stranger. She described how her father was suffering from a wasting disease, a terminal complaint. She was upset because her mother had been angry with her father, and occasionally her father was vexed with her mother. Of course, this happens and, of course, the tensions spread to the children. We have no right to assume that, because people are disabled, they are saints or heroes. They are subject to all the pressures and stresses that this unhappy situation brings about. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response to that suggestion in Lady Sharp's report. We must, in fairness, bear in mind that Lady Sharp was restricted by her terms of reference.
I appreciate that, if we are to make wide provision, there will have to be substantial expenditure. I could suggest economies in directions where money is lavished and where disablement might well be a consequence of that extravagance. But even if the programme is to be financed by more orthodox means, if it means a penny on a pint or a copper on income tax, this is surely a triviality to anyone who is fortunate enough to enjoy the luxury of good health and reasonable wealth. It should, indeed, be a privilege to contribute towards relieving the burden on our less fortunate brethren.
I believe that people are reasonably decent, and, if they are approached, consulted and advised, they would respond and be prepared to pay to meet this situation. I honestly think that we should be astonished and delighted at the response that such an attitude would bring.

9.10 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I welcome this opportunity to add to the comments and congratulations on Lady Sharp's far-reaching report. It does have some drawbacks, to which reference has already been made. I think that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) probably put it most forcefully when he talked about the potential removal of eligibility from the 13,500 people today, next year, the year after and so on, who might lose their vehicles and their entitlement.
We often talk about the possibility of life after death. I hope that there is a life after retirement. But for disabled people there will not be a life after retirement if they do not have their cars. I know that many of my constituents who are getting on in years still get around remarkably well with the help of their "trikes". Work is practically their only outside contact. They beg me to go and see them more regularly, because it means a friendly face for them to see. I am sure that this happens throughout the country, week in and week out.
I sincerely hope that, if these vehicles were removed at all, they would not be removed from retired people. That would be to deny a life after retirement for a large section of our population who still have much of the life and good will in them that keep other younger disabled people going, and who have shown the way on so many occasions.
When I spoke in the House six weeks ago, I spoke very critically of the "trike", and I still am exceedingly critical of that vehicle, if it can be so called. Research into a new car needs to be speeded up if we are to continue to have a smaller vehicle specially designed.
But I welcome Lady Sharp's recommendation to move to the conversion of other cars, and not only to the Mini. There are many people, not necessarily large, but with particular hip disabilities, who simply cannot swing a leg into a car unless the door is sufficiently wide. Not only have we to adapt these cars for the people who so badly need mobility, but we have to improve forthwith, not waiting for a Government report, the safety measures on the P70. As many hon. Members have done, I have sat in one, started to drive, and been too frightened to go ahead.
Those are the problems of the "trike". We have heard a lot tonight about this aspect of physical mobility, but I want to turn to other aspects which, I regret, are mentioned only briefly in the report—mobility in the home and mobility for the housewife. Only four paragraphs under the heading of "Housing" in the main report really refer to this aspect.
During the last few months, I have become more and more familiar with the problems of disabled housewives simply


in going into a kitchen and not being able to come out of it forwards, but having always to reverse out because there is no room to turn round the wheelchair. It may be due to the siting of domestic appliances, but in the main it is due to the type of property. If such disabled housewives are in council property, it is sometimes possible to move them to another place. If they are in their own property, which is often the case when they have become disabled later in life, a move is usually not financially possible.
We come, then, to one of the most tragic situations today—the problem of alterations to existing homes to accommodate people who become disabled after moving in. It is particularly acute where it is their own home. It seems to me utter nonsense, although I welcome and will always push for home improvement grants—I hope they continue at the 75 per cent. level—that a family who are able-bodied get an improvement grant whereas, to convert some part of a house for somebody who is disabled the money available is usually very much smaller. It is exceedingly difficult to get the large grants which are sometimes needed for alterations to existing homes. I am speaking here particularly about toilets.
If the toilets are outside—meaning on the ground floor—they are nearly always up a step, or they may be down the back steps. Such steps are probably steep and unable to take the normal ramp because of their height. That problem can sometimes be skilfully overcome by borough architects. But often there is no provision or no possibility of having a ground-floor toilet or washing facilities such as a shower.
Money should be turned to the provision of a mini-elevator on the stairs. I know that it is not a cheap appliance, but I believe that it would enable some of the disabled to lead a more normal life, when they could sit on a little seat and be hydraulically drawn up the stairs, actually sleep in a normal bedroom and go into their bathrooms on the higher floor. It would probably work out cheaper than the conversion of a ground floor room or an extension built on to a house to enable the disabled to look after themselves with due care, but without all the strains imposed by their present

mode of life. Finally, on the subject of housing, I want to comment on the placement of disabled and handicapped persons, and the chronically sick as well, in public authority housing. Parking distances from front doors are often a source of considerable fear and a problem for disabled persons. If their vehicle has to be left any distance from their front door, if it is not kept in a secure garage or is where they cannot see it, problems arise.
Most local authorities attempt to house disabled persons on the ground floors. In public sector housing there tend to be a lot of children playing in the area, and I regret to say that many children today have no respect for anything, let alone a disabled person's vehicle. Many of my disabled constituents are suffering from increasing vandalism, for they cannot put their cars anywhere near their own front doors because of local authority restrictions.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will find a way to influence local authorities to give the disabled more mobility from their front doors. The siting of disabled people's homes and the provision of home amenities are only part of the story. The disabled must be able to get about locally. They must be allowed to live as normal a life as possible. The intentions on both sides of the House are the same. I hope that we make sure that we have no idiotic schemes of spending that prevent our giving the maximum encouragement to disabled people to live their lives to the full.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak in a debate on this subject, and I say straight away that I am impressed with the concern and sincerity shown on both sides of the House.
We have a controversial report before us on a controversial subject. It must be controversial because of the many needs of the disabled. There are many arguments and many interests which tend to indicate that there is no overall single solution to the problem and that there is something to be said for the various representations made by the interested parties about their needs.
There is evidence available that ordinary cars—four-wheelers——adapted as necessary for use by disabled drivers should now replace three-wheelers. I agree that ordinary small cars ought to be introduced for those who want them and are able to use them. Apart from any other factor—safety, for instance, which, although important, must not be exaggerated—the ordinary small car has advantages in that it would carry passengers, which is most important, whilst for the disabled who cannot drive and do not want to drive the ordinary car offers a chance of extended mobility.
Although adaptations can be made to the ordinary small car at a cost, I am convinced that if three-wheelers were withdrawn, even gradually, a great number of disabled people who are mobile at present would be deprived of this facility. If vehicle provision were to be generally extended as it should be, the ideal situation might well be that the provision of ordinary small cars and three-wheelers would grow in numbers. One of my constituents tells me that at the moment he cannot envisage an ordinary small car being more advantageous to him in a situation where he uses a chair to get him in and away from his three-wheeler vehicle. No doubt there are many others.
One of the arguments in favour of the ordinary small car is that the user will be less conspicuous. Another of my constituents tells me that recognition, or being conspicuous, is important, especially when police allow him to drive into shopping precincts and park whilst he goes into the shop, in areas where other vehicles would not be allowed. He believes also that an ordinary small car would not meet the requirements the three-wheeler affords him at present in sliding-door and sliding-seat facilities.
The arguments go on, they are varied, and decisions will have to be made. I believe that it will be fatal to insist that the provision of the ordinary small car is the complete answer to the problem. The three-wheeler will continue to meet the needs of many. I am glad that there appears to be general agreement on that matter.
I am concerned about the servicing, maintaining and adapting of invalid car-

riages. At present there are about 130 approved repairers in this country who are all agents to the Department. There is a danger that large car manufacturers will begin to distribute the four-wheelers and eventually to service and maintain them. If this happens there is every possibility that many repairers will become commercially unviable. This could result in a severe curtailment of servicing facilities for those who would still have to drive invalid carriages and for the many thousands of invalid chair users. Obviously this is a danger.
Over the years the approved repairers have built up considerable expertise, not only in the technical aspects of the trade, but in their human relationships with the disabled. They know the personal needs of those with whom they deal. Such specialist knowledge of the requirements of disabled people is of paramount importance to the well-being of the Department's patients.
There is general agreement that changes must occur, but, because of the introduction of the four-wheeler, I hope that the present system of repair, servicing and adaptation is not disturbed to the extent that many disabled persons will be seriously inconvenienced in their desire to be mobile. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) said that the ordinary run of garages do not want to know when it comes to servicing the type of vehicle with which we are concerned.
It is important that the skill and techniques, in both technical and human terms, of employees in the trade should not be lost to the Department. It is also important that the service be retained to avoid the dislocation and possible loss of jobs in the existing repair service.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for the disabled will give serious consideration to all the points that we make in the debate.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The Sharp Report is, on the whole, a wise and constructive statement of the problem—a problem that the average person notices only when he meets a wheelchair on the footpath or sees a three-wheeler on the road. The general public are also


only made aware of the problem at a time such as the publication of this report.
I agree with the conclusion that mobility, although important, is not necessarily the most pressing need of the disabled person. A house—indeed, a whole environment—properly designed, would be a far greater boon to the majority of the handicapped. More must be done in that direction. However, I agree with the conclusion that progress has been made, and is being made. There is no doubt about the finding of the report that houses which are suitable for the able-bodied as well as the disabled are possibly the cheapest and easiest way around the problem in many cases, but by no means all.
Sliding doors would be an advantage to housewives in wheelchairs, as would windows with catches low down so that they could open them, and cupboards at a reasonable height. I know one lady confined to a wheelchair all her life who manages to provide bed and breakfast in her bungalow. She is to be commended.
In paragraph 103 of the report there is a reference to the difficulty in recruiting skilled staff, such as physiotherapists, to deal with the problems of the disabled. A standard of pay in Keeping with the skill and training of such staff would go a long way towards solving the problem.
The powered wheelchair could have a ides application than it has now, urge the Minister to have a close look at this means of keeping the disabled mobile.
Speaking of mobility, I must confess to being rather startled to find that it is reckoned that about 13,500 people at present receiving three-wheelers would be left out in the cold under the report. We should try to keep disabled people mobile and not restrict them to fireside chairs. I trust that that part of the report will not be accepted.
I am also concerned that no grant is payable to those who wsh to convert their own car. Such people are generally those who have a job and who wish to continue with their work, and they generally fall into Category 2 or 3. I press on hon. Members the needs of these industrious but unfortunate members of society, and ask that such people should receive a grant for conversion. They

generally need hand controls which are rather costly, to say the least, but those controls cost a great deal less than the car which would be supplied to those people if they did not have a car of their own.
No one will quibble if those who can drive without conversion to their vehicles receive £125 rather than £100 plus vehicle excise duty, but that sum should be increased in view of the greatly increased costs of motoring, and should be reviewed at frequent intervals.
The help available to the disabled should be given wide publicity, so that those who are eligible know of it. It is evident from the report that many people who are entitled to help do not receive it, because they do not know of their entitlement.
Some people are putting forward the claims of the 850 c.c. Mini automatic or the small Daf for the use of the disabled. I drove a Daf once; a fellow was trying to sell it to me. I cannot offer an opinion on its suitability after one trial. In any case, I prefer British cars, because they are much easier to come by, and spare parts are always available. But in my experience the 850 c.c. Mini automatic seems to spend all its time changing up or down. Not everyone lives in a flat part of the country. We should opt for a rather larger engine.
The care and maintenance of all vehicles used by the disabled should be undertaken only by garages of the highest standards of competence. We dare not have low standards of workmanship on such vehicles.
I agree with the hon. Member who said that vehicles for the disabled should be recognisable on the road. That is essential.
In so far as some people have to carry their wheelchairs with them, perhaps examination should be made of the possibility of using small vans or vehicles of the station wagon type rather than cars, as they might be more suitable for carrying a wheelchair.
We should give our disabled folk as much help as the financial state of the nation can allow.
Like the hon. Member who spoke earlier, I have a constituent and personal friend who lost both legs and who has had 50 or 60 operations. He also lost two fingers. Such severely disabled


people should be an inspiration to other members of the community, because we do not hear the disabled moaning about their condition. They are usually cheerful people, who do the best they can. They deserve the support and sympathy of this House.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to the debate, if only briefly. I apologise to the Minister for having missed his introductory remarks. I wish to make only two points.
The whole House accepts that it is a major breakthrough to have got this far. We all pay tribute to people like my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who battled so long and so stalwartly on this subject. The one thing which gives cause for concern to all of us who have watched the broadening of the categories involved is the uncertainty which exists about the position of a disabled individual or disabled family in respect of their entitlement.
We have broken through from the days when only the war disabled were entitled to four-wheeled vehicles. We have come slowly through to the development of certain categories of disabled employment. A major battle was won on behalf of haemophiliacs by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse). Even today the situation is exemplified by the urgent pleas from all quarters of the House concerning those disabled people who still need the three-wheeler and the position of the disabled passenger.
Every hon. Member knows how agonising it is when a disabled family comes to a surgery and ask why they are not entitled to the form of mobility that will make all the difference to them. My plea is that, when legislation is brought forward on the basis of Lady Sharp's report, or based on the conclusions which the Department reaches, the categorisation of those who will be entitled to help should be made very clear. If it is not, there will continue to be uncertainty and misery will be caused to large numbers of people who do not know where they stand. Many hon. Members will have found one of the most shocking things in the entire report to be the fact that at

present many of those entitled to claim for help do not do so because they do not know of their entitlement. Can the situation be made abundantly clear?
I echo the moving pleas made by my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) about mobility in the home. Although this takes up only a small number of paragraphs in the report, I know that it is given great weight by Lady Sharp. In many ways she regards it as being among the most important of the tasks she had to consider.
I know that the Minister has this point in mind because he has discussed it with the all-party parliamentary disablement group and other groups. I know that he wants to improve existing facilities for home mobility and to co-ordinate them with building styles and techniques so as to mould these facilities together. We are all aware of the problems of many of our constituents with electric plugs that are not within reach and baths that are impossible to get into. These are the things that make it impossible for disabled persons to lead the normal life to which they are entitled and which with a little thought could be provided.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: In spite of the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the Minister, we can claim that this debate on this brilliant but in some respects rather controversial report has been fully justified. It is fair to say that every speech has contributed something worth while and has helped to establish some kind of consensus which I am sure the Minister will find of real value. It is true that we have elicited nothing from the Minister so far in terms of solid commitment or promise on the topic of the report.
The Minister argues that the whole question should be tied up with the question of the overall cash aid to the disabled. As I understand it, he will be making an announcement taking these two things together in due course. I am not sure that I fully accept his logic, and I do not think that Lady Sharp accepted it. There are indications in the report that she regarded the question of the


mobility of the disabled and the disability income as being separate. In paragraph 68, she said:
If the disabled have a case for help in meeting travel costs, it seems to me part of the case for disablement income which is a separate matter.
In other words, she seems to indicate that there is a division between the two. I am not sure that I do not agree with her. Nevertheless, we respect the right of the Minister and the Government to bring forward their proposals together.
There is only one point on which I would cavil at the attitude of the Minister. It is about the terms of reference. The Minister said that in his view the limitations imposed on Lady Sharp in the terms of reference caused her to have an almost impossible task. That is not fair. The terms of reference said that she should have regard
to the help in cash or kind which the available resources permit or could permit from the various agencies with responsibilities for such persons.
In other words, she certainly was asked to consider the resources situation. But I do not believe that it ever does any harm in any of these problems to bear that in mind. After all, we can perfectly well say that Lady Sharp's view on how resources can be best used is not acceptable to us, but that she has given us the facts and the argument which can provide the basis for our judgment. So on that point I do not agree with the Minister. But it is fair to say—I believe that the Minister will accept this—that the House is forming a general view about the Sharp Report.
I should like briefly to pick up what seem to me to be some of the principal ingredients in this matter. The House is unanimous in being attracted by Lady Sharp's idea of there being a need for non-drivers equal to that for drivers. That point has been accepted by all. Equally, the House is not happy about Lady Sharp's restriction in the criteria that she put forward. Speaker after speaker in the debate has expressed his or her unhappiness about the idea that we should say to people who have vehicles that they can no longer have them or, indeed, perhaps, that their successors in similar circumstances will not be able to have them.
I am not quite sure how far the Minister's pledge on this matter goes. He says that no one will lose his vehicle. I am not quite clear that he extrapolates that into the future. I am not clear whether he is saying that no one in future will be limited by the criteria that Lady Sharp laid down. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will clarify that point.
What of the other points which came over strongly? One or two hon. Members—certainly one of my hon. Friends—raised some doubt about whether it needs to take quite so long to provide cars as Lady Sharp seems to indicate. She said that it would take four or five years, or even longer, to produce 40,000 small cars. She also points out, very fairly, that adaptation would take time. But I wonder whether it would take as long as that and whether it is beyond the capacity of our admittedly somewhat erratic motor-car industry to produce this number of vehicles. We should take note of the question whether the cash alternative might be used to accelerate the provision of these vehicles.
There was naturally much concern about the proposal to cease the supply of three-wheelers. Among some of the experts there is still a big difference of opinion on this matter, but I largely agree with the Minister on this subject. I think that the whole House agreed with him. My hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) and Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) put forward very strongly the case that it would be quite wrong to cease provision of the three-wheeler. It was said with great force that it would be a great hardship to 16year-olds who are at present able to drive to work with the aid of these vehicles and who would not be able to do so in future.
There is a serious fear on the part of some who have these vehicles about the consequences of being deprived of them. I want to quote a few lines from a letter on this subject which was sent to one of my hon. Friends by someone who falls into this category:
The report on Mobility of Physically Disabled People came to me as a great shock. While it is indeed good to consider replacing the three-wheeler with a four-wheel car, it is a dreadful thought for those who will not be eligible for such a car, that their present three-wheeler will he phased out. To many of us these tricycles are a lifeline, giving us the


means to live a normal life and integrate into society. Only those who have experienced being housebound will know fully what this means. I am sure that if such a retrograde step be introduced mental illness among those affected will increase dramatically, thus causing more expense to the State than would the provision of a motorised vehicle.
That letter sums up a view which has come over strongly in this debate.
Also, we must ensure that if cars are provided, they should be provided in such a way that they will fit all shapes and sizes of people. This point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I recently met a disabled constituent who is 6 ft. 2 ins. tall and finds it hard to squeeze himself into his Mini. I suppose he is lucky to have a car, but he experiences difficulties each time he wants to go out. Therefore, the question of the size of vehicles should be examined.
The debate has touched upon the question whether a car should be provided or whether there should be a cash alternative. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury strongly argued the case for a cash alternative. He said, quite rightly, that the system would be quicker to operate, it would help to meet the need for different shapes and sizes of people, and it would keep the Civil Service out of the operation. He also argued—though perhaps more controversially—that this is a more easily means-tested way of operating. I do not agree entirely with my hon. Friend on his last point, but I believe that there is a strong case for preferring a cash alternative if it is remotely possible.
I do not think the doubts put forward by Lady Sharp in paragraph 58 of the report are altogether persuasive. It seems to me not all that difficult to check whether cash has been spent on buying a car. Lady Sharp argued that there would be problems in finding out whether the people concerned used the money for the legitimate purpose of buying a car. Surely, when one considers log books, receipts, and so forth, that would not be a very difficult problem.
Lady Sharp also argued in her report that it might be difficult to judge what the appropriate sum should be. I have no doubt that there would be a great deal of argument, but the fact that something causes a little argument should not be used as a reason for not doing it. If politicians were to take that view they

would have a pretty miserable life and would get nowhere. Conservative Members have been much more sympathetic to the cash option than was Lady Sharp in her report.
This debate has been useful, since it has concentrated on major questions involving vehicles, but it has also produced one or two extremely good contributions on other aspects of mobility, in connection with the household, and so on. Two points have been put to me by Dr. Walsh, Director of the Spinal Injuries Unit at Stoke Mandeville, which is in my constituency. That unit has a right to speak on this subject in a way that can be claimed by no other institution in this country. Dr. Walsh is unhappy about the Department's decision—I do not blame the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services, because this happened before her time in office—to stop supplying the Everest and Jennings wheelchairs, which are made by a subsidiary of an American company. Admittedly, they are more expensive than the alternative chair, the Esse.
Dr. Walsh says that the chair now favoured by the Department, although built to its specifications, is uncomfortable and unpopular with patients. He argues that the chair is quite useful as a cheap fall-back for intermittent use but that it is not acceptable for permanent full-time use. He also says that he does not accept that the supply situation for the Everest and Jennings wheelchairs justifies this switch. I understand that that is the argument which has been put forward.
I do not expect the Minister to answer these points immediately, but I hope that he will consider them to see whether the right decision has been made.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider one other matter relating to the supply of wheelchairs to people who need them both at work and at home. I understand that in the past it was possible for people to have supplied to them two wheelchairs—one for use at each place. It was argued that there was some abuse of this. I do not know the details, but apparently it has become the practice to stop allowing people a second wheelchair at work. It does not take very much thought to realise that this can be a serious problem for people who obviously have this double requirement. I hope


that the Minister will find time to see whether this policy is being administered as sensibly and in as enlightened a manner as possible.
This debate has proved well worth while. At the end of it we can say that a fairly clear consensus has emerged about the House's view on this extremely important subject. We look forward to the Minister's reply and even more to some rapid and effective action.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With the leave of the House I shall attempt to reply to the many matters raised by hon. Members in this brief debate.
I feel a little like the melancholy old man of 70 who was given a 20-year gaol sentence. He pointed out to the judge that at his age he could not possibly serve 20 years, only to have the judge tell him to try his best and to serve as many as he could. I shall do my very best to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been asked of me.
We have heard powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), whose distinguished service to disabled people is recognised on both sides of the House, feared that I was in danger of being a poacher turned gamekeeper. I am sure that he will agree that I am a rather improbable gamekeeper. I share that improbability with the hon. Gentleman. I have to confess that I am still poaching, perhaps not quite so publicly, but still with as much energy as I can muster.

Mr. Marten: Keep it up!

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said that he hoped that he would not lose my friendship if he continued to press for more research and development in the service to disabled people. The contrary is true. My hon. Friend will increase and compound my regard for his efforts on behalf of disabled people if he continues to emphasise the importance of research and development.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) raised a number of matters in detail. I had hoped that it would be possible for me to reply to them all. There are some to which

I can reply now. However, I shall have to write to him about others. I shall do so as quickly as possible, and I shall provide as much information as is available to me.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how many recipients there were of the vehicle service at the age of 16 years. We do not have immediately available the number of present recipients at that age. I think we can find out and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the near future.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the residual demand for three-wheelers. If cars were available, it is not possible to say how many would still wish to retain the three-wheeler. It might be that 80 per cent. could manage a car, which would leave 20 per cent. That is only a surmise.
I was asked about the faults found by MIRA. I take this opportunity to say that all model 70s will be withdrawn to have modifications made to their petrol tanks.
I was asked about possible cost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that Lady Sharp mentioned the figure of an additional £12 million in paragraph 41 of her report. That is only a guess, and excludes persons over the age of 70. The cost is possibly higher, and Lady Sharp admits that it may well be higher. If 125,000 disabled passengers—that is one guess—were to be included, the cost would be between £20 million and £25 million.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Additional.

Mr. Morris: That would be additional, as my right hon. Friend reminds me. However, I must emphasise that all these figures can only be guesswork. How are we to know, for example, what the number of nominated drivers would be if we said to those who are too severely disabled to drive that they could nominate others to drive for them?
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) referred to the rumour about handing over the vehicle service to the social security network. I am pleased to allay this rumour. I have heard it previously. This debate provides a good opportunity to allay what


could be a disturbing rumour to many disabled people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to Mr. Paul Bates, a severely disabled man also referred to in earlier debates. He is widely respected by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Paul Bates said in a recent article in the weekly journal Social Services that it would take the wisdom of Solomon to solve a problem as complex as the one we are discussing. Solomon was an individual and we are a fellowship of people seeking to solve a difficult problem. The collective wisdom that emerges from the debate will take us much further towards the solution of a problem which all of us know is formidable, daunting and intimidating.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) said that the director of MIRA was prepared for the commercial vehicles, tested for comparison with the model 70, to be referred to by the letters A, B and C to hide their identity. I will pass copies of the exchange of letters between my right hon. Friend and Mr. Macmillan, the director of MIRA, on this point. Mr. Macmillan is not satisfied that one could hide the identity of the other vehicles tested.
I referred earlier in the debate to the problem of commercial confidence. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is respected for his deep interest in this problem, will accept that we did our best to publish the MIRA reports in their entirety. I honour my right hon. Friend for the immediate action she took in writing to the director of MIRA about her desire to publish the MIRA reports as a whole.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked whether, when we said that we could not disentitle present beneficiaries of the scheme, we were talking also about their successors. My right hon. Friend has said that we could not disentitle the categories of people whom Lady Sharp would disentitle. Of course we could not, nor could any Government, commit successor administrations. I have given my right hon. Friend's view, which, as the House knows, she holds strongly.
I was deeply impressed by the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) and Watford

(Mr. Tuck). They brought to the debate experience of the realities of life for severely disabled people. We have not looked very much at the problems of housing for the disabled or at the details of indoor mobility for those who are very severely disabled. The speeches by the hon. Members for Lancaster and for Wallasey dealt with these important matters more thoroughly than other speeches made in the debate. These matters were reviewed by Lady Sharp in her report. There will be other occasions to consider the housing problems of disabled people and access problems of those who find it difficult to negotiate steps and narrow corridors.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: As far as I can follow, the hon. Member referred to a statement by his right hon. Friend as reported in column 31 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 25th March. I do not read it in the sense that the hon. Gentleman gave it. I understand that the Secretary of State for Social Services was saying there that only those who had an existing entitlement to a vehicle would retain it and others would do so while stocks lasted. Is the hon. Member going further than that now?

Mr. Morris: The point is a little difficult. My right hon. Friend is saying that she does not intend to disentitle existing categories of people whom Lady Sharp would disentitle. I am not certain that we are dealing with much more than semantics at this stage. I realise that an important point was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury when he said that we must think of the successors as well as the current beneficiaries, but I hope that the assurance I have given will be taken as a firm and important one from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Raison: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would say whether the Government definitely reject the Sharp criteria for eligibility.

Mr. Morris: That is partly what my right hon. Friend was saying. She accepts that the question is very complex, but she was saying that she rejects the criteria accepted by Lady Sharp in so far as they would disentitle categories of people who are now entitled to the service. I think the short answer to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friend is, "Yes".
I have very little time left now. I proposed to refer as far as I could to the other question raised by the hon. Gentleman about those who require wheelchairs at work and at home. Like many other questions that have been raised in the debate, this is a matter that I shall have to try to deal with by correspondence.
I say again, in conclusion, that I think that this has been an extremely important debate that shows how devoted the House of Commons is in its concern to alleviate the problems of severely disabled people.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Rabies Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — RABIES BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPENDITURE

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 8th April relating to nomination of Members of the Expenditure Committee, Mr. A. P. Costain and Mr. Anthony Grant be discharged from the Committee and Sir John Rodgers and Mr. Ralph Howell be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — RINGWAY 3(HAYES)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: To the general public one of the more mystifying features of Governmental financial management is the apparent ease with which astronomical capital sums are found for schemes of doubtful national value. We have had a spate of those in recent years, schemes as grandiose as they are ill-founded. Yet when there is a minor constructional scheme of tangible and unchallengeable value to the community, relatively cheap and economically beneficial, easy to implement and crying out for implementation, only too often the public purse suddenly contracts and all manner of utterly specious arguments and pretexts are produced to justify bureaucratic delays and near paralysis.
The need for the ringway road built to motorway standards which is the subject of this debate is fully recognised and has been for a long time past. I need not go over the planning history. By Ringway 3 the Minister will know that I refer essentially to that part of the proposed motorway extending from the M4 to the A40 at Western Avenue. There is a need, first, to link the primary radial routes, such as M3, M4 and M40, which have no high standard connections at present. Secondly, there is a need to link the local centres of the outer suburbs, whose main road and rail communications are with central London. At the moment, these movements between radials and between local centres depend precariously upon the overloaded secondary road system. As the hon. Gentleman's Department knows, the position today is chaotic and growing worse month by month.
My own constituency is at the heart of this congestion and bears the main brunt. The narrow roads through the centre of Hayes—Coldharbour Lane, Station Road, the railway bridge, North Hyde Road—were never designed or intended to carry the volume of traffic which each day at

certain periods chokes the life of this community. Hayes is an important industrial area generating quite enough traffic of its own, both private and commercial, without having the further burden of the even greater volume of traffic tortuously winding its way through Hayes in both directions en route to other destinations, not least to and from the huge complex of the London Airport off the M4.
The Minister is no doubt aware—and it adds to the urgency of my appeal to him this evening—that this already serious situation is now exacerbated by the opening of the new Brentford market on the southern fringe of Hayes and Southall. I believe that this market opened this week, and it is estimated that it will shortly generate an additional 4,000 lorries a day, most of which will inevitably clog even further the secondary road system through this densely populated area of west London.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the opening of the market without the contemporaneous construction of the first section of Ringway 3 from the M4 to Uxbridge Road was never envisaged, and an utterly grotesque traffic situation now ensues. I am not given to jeremiads, but I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister that unless the Government take urgent action, Hayes town before long will grind to a complete standstill.
The idea of the ringway is to provide fast, free-flow conditions and high standard connections with the radial routes to meet the needs of the longer distance traffic. Together with access for traffic travelling between adjoining areas, that would bring a degree of relief to the overloaded secondary roads, which would then function as feeders to the primary system and serve the needs of the shorter distance traffic.
I appreciate that the Layfield Report at the beginning of 1973 and the rejection of the two inner ringways made some reappraisal of Ringway 3 necessary. The abandonment of the inner ringway scheme has merely emphasised the importance of Ringway 3 and underlined the urgency of any studies into Ringway 3 by the Government.
I exchanged a number of letters with the Secretary of State for the Environment of the last Government and, while he clearly recognised the nature and the


urgency of the problem, he was unable to go further than to give somewhat vague assurances with regard to his Department's continuing appraisal of the Ringway 3 plans.
The people whom I represent in Parliament—and I include in that category all the various organisations and firms in my constituency who have made representations to me on this issue, as well as the Hillingdon Borough Council, which has played a praiseworthy role—are tired of anodyne assurances. Hayes and the whole area desperately need this relief section of the ringway and its extension to Western Avenue. Clearly, in the long run the two sections must go together. The bypass section on its own, though useful in the short term, would create quite new traffic problems at its terminal point, unless it was quickly followed by the second stage of construction from the junction with the Uxbridge Road to the A40 at Western Avenue.
I am anxious, however, tonight to have an assurance from the Minister that work on the first section—the Hayes bypass—fully agreed in every planning aspect, will commence in the near future.
I know that the Minister will accept from me that feelings on this issue are running high throughout the whole West London area. It is an explosive issue arising from an explosive situation. Great economic and social harm is being done to the whole area as long as the present position persists, and indeed deteriorates. I hope that the new Labour Government will act on this issue with the same decisiveness and sense of urgency that they have demonstrated in other directions since the election eight weeks ago.

10.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The House always appreciates the vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) takes up the cudgels on behalf of his constituency. I shall do my best. He made some reference to having been given anodyne assurances in the past. I am not sure that I can give him any very positive assurances, but I hope that I can explain some of the problems involved in the subject he has raised. While I can understand his arguments about an apparently

simple road such as the one he has been speaking about so eloquently, comparing it with some of the projects we have been discussing recently, I think that this is not the right moment to go into the question of the rate of return on investment and the other reasons which are used when a decision is made on whether to build a road or any other type of project such as the Channel Tunnel, which we discussed yesterday.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the eloquence with which he described the problems arising from the heavy use made by traffic on roads which, I agree, are ill equipped to deal with it, and the consequent plight of people living and shopping in the neighbourhood of these roads. Unfortunately, many of the conditions described by my hon. Friend occur not only within the boundaries of Greater London but throughout the country, with varying degrees of severity. Nevertheless I extend my sympathy to the people of Hayes in the difficulties they are suffering.
In considering the problems of Hayes, it is necessary to understand the division of responsibility between the Greater London Council, which is responsible for the improvement of adverse conditions on metropolitan roads such as the A312 through Hayes. and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who seeks to provide and maintain a national system of trunk roads.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I explain a little more of the central Government's rôle in the provision of such roads. I am not trying merely to give facts that will confuse the issue, but I think it important that we should try to understand it, and, in particular, the function of trunk roads.
Trunk roads comprise the national system of routes for through traffic. Because their function is of national rather than of local importance, they are financed entirely by the Government. My right hon. Friend is responsible for those in England and he has a duty to keep the trunk road system under review, considering both the requirements of local and national planning. These routes are designed to form a network of high quality roads connecting major towns throughout the country and serving major ports and airports.
In addition to routes between major towns, a system of orbital routes linking them may be needed where several trunk roads lead into a conurbation. If it can be shown that the primary function of such an orbital route is to serve the needs of longer-distance traffic, the road may be considered to form part of the national trunk road system. Orbital routes do not necessarily have totally to encircle a conurbation; they may consist only of short stretches between adjoining radial routes.
Within a major urban area, the interests of local traffic are likely to predominate, and it is, therefore, right that principal and, indeed, other local roads should be the responsibility of the local authority rather than of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When my right hon. Friend plans a new trunk road or improvement to an existing trunk road, the projected route may bypass a town centre, but it does not follow that every new road which bypasses a town centre should be a trunk road. The important factor is that, to be considered as a possible trunk road, a bypass should connect at each end with a trunk road. Where a bypass is designed to give relief to a town centre and the bypass itself does not connect trunk roads, the local authority would be the responsible highway authority. I hope that that explanation clarifies the essential difference between trunk roads and other roads, for it is important in discussing the problems raised by my hon. Friend.
I come now to Ringway 3. It so happens that a possible stretch of an orbital route for London might follow a route whose proximity to Hayes would attract heavy traffic away from the high street. This orbital route currently has the name "Ringway 3", and if the House will allow me to give a brief history of it, an understanding of the present position will be achieved.
The concept of a series of ring roads around London has been in existence since at least the beginning of this century. In 1944, Abercrombie suggested in his Greater London Plan that an outer orbital route would be desirable for intercommunication between towns on the periphery of London. The Government of the day accepted this, and in 1947 the Memorandum on the Report

of the Advisory Committee for London Regional Planning included, as well as north and south orbital roads, the possibility of a D-ring route around the north and west of London from the Norwich radial to the Brighton radial.
Up to 1968, the line of the D-ring, which is now known as Ringway 3, was a topic for considerable discussion, and at that time there were three different proposals for the route in north-west London. The widespread problems caused by the uncertainty of having three possible routes prompted the then Minister of Transport to announce one route for continued safeguarding.
Various sections of the Ringway 3 are at different stages of planning and development, but overall progress was overtaken by the submission of the Greater London Development Plan and the subsequent inquiry.
The stretch of particular concern to my hon. Friend is that between the M4 and the A4020, the Uxbridge Road. The draft orders under the Highways Act 1959 necessary for this scheme were published in July 1971, but further progress has been deferred until decisions on the Greater London Development Plan can be taken.
Before I advise the House on the present position of this published scheme, a word or two about the Greater London Development Plan would be of assistance. The Greater London Development Plan deals with many major issues amongst which is the provision of a primary road network.
After the Greater London Development Plan had been submitted for approval in August 1969, the Government set up a Panel of Inquiry to examine the proposals in the plan, to hear objections, and to review alternative proposals. The Panel, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Frank Layfield, QC, delivered its report in December 1972, and the then Secretary of State published in February 1973 a statement giving a summary of the Panel's recommendations and the Government's initial views on them.
The Panel suggested that the whole southern and western sections of Ringway 3 from the M20 in the South-East to the A1 in the North-West should be struck out of the plan. The February 1973 statement explained that more time


was needed to consider this but that some provision would have to be made for orbital movements in these areas. Further study would be required to determine whether the need could best be met by a motorway on the line of Ringway 3 or by other road improvements. We are now considering urgently what modifications should be made to the plan as a whole in the light of the Panel's report, and I am confident that it will not be too long before decisions are announced.
Until decisions have been taken on the future of Ringway 3, it would be quite inappropriate to proceed further with the scheme from the M4 to the A4020. In any event, its design would be materially altered if it were not to form part of Ringway 3. However, if it is finally decided that Ringway 3 can be justified as a trunk road project and should be along this route near Hayes, the scheme should be capable of early implementation.
On the other hand, should the Ringway 3 concept be abandoned, or a quite different line chosen, the small scheme near Hayes could no longer be considered as part of the trunk road network. In these circumstances, it would be for the London Borough of Hillingdon and the Greater London Council as highway authority for the A312 through Hayes to decide whether some form of relief road would be justified to deal with the special problems in this area or whether any other measures might serve.
Of the options open in the longer term, the GLC might consider adopting a scheme on a similar alignment for which it has already carried out much of the necessary survey work, or it might consider that an altogether different alignment might be more appropriate to provide relief for not only Hayes but other neighbourhoods, too. However, it is only fair to point out that were a bypass for Hayes to be accepted in

principle by the GLC, the Council would need to decide its importance in relation to competing claims elsewhere in London.
I hope that what I have said will be of some help to my hon. Friend in explaining the position of the road system in his part of north-west London to his constituents.

Mr. Sandelson: Can my hon. Friend give me any idea of the length of the period of gestation on the part of the Government in regard to the Ringway 3 plans? May we expect a decision by the Government on the construction of a ringway road before the end of the year?

Mr. Carmichael: I tried to explain the problem the Government have in their own programme, with my right lion. Friend's difficulties in assigning the available expenditure to one scheme as against another. Being a London Member, my hon. Friend knows even better than I do the problem that was caused when the Layfield Report was produced on the ring scheme. The GLC is rightly much involved in the planning of roads in the whole of London. Particularly because of the political involvement in this part of the D-ring road system, it would be wrong of me to try to hazard a guess as to when my right hon. Friend or the GLC can make a decision on the final road pattern.
I shall be only too pleased to take up the matter with my hon. Friend a little later in the year, when we may know more about the prospects for the D-ring road. Especially after my hon. Friend raised the matter as he did tonight, I shall be pleased to help in any way I can if he would care to write to me or see me in the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.